5 ms·

That's kind of the whole point. People want that.

• halostatue 5y ago
  Do they? Or are the places that people can afford constrained to offer that, making them think that what they can afford and what they _want_ are the same thing? I live in a reasonably walkable section of Toronto, but I still need a car for some of what I do (if I got a bike trailer, I could reduce that need to a larger degree than I already have, but public transit where I live is suboptimal for short trips and doesn’t go everywhere we want). I could not now afford the house I bought twelve years ago because the market has gone crazy (we estimate we could get 3–4x what we paid for the house—but then we’d have to find a place to live), especially for the more walkable sections of the city. I _want_ more walkable, transit-able, and bikeable parts of the city. I also want it to be more affordable to more people in the city, because I don’t particularly want to force people to have 2 hour commutes into the city because they think they want more space, but in order to have more space they have to move where nothing is as reachable as it is here.
• thebradbain 5y ago
  Is that why real estate in dense, walkable cities/neighborhoods is the most expensive in the country? No one is saying get rid of suburbs. They’ll always be in the US. But when 95%+ of zoning laws make it so suburban sprawl is the _only_ thing that can get built, then you’re taking a choice away from the people who want to live in cities.