Are you claiming that suburbs are more "walkable"? What destinations are you walking to? Or are you describing a kind of pastoral pleasantness that is present i

Are you claiming that suburbs are more "walkable"? What destinations are you walking to? Or are you describing a kind of pastoral pleasantness that is present in suburbs but not in denser areas? I think what confuses some people about this topic is that their mental image of "suburbs" is a quiet street surrounded by lawns & trees, with minimal traffic, while their mental image of cities is of noisy, stinky, dangerous streets with lots of traffic. I would argue that the "pleasant" qualities that we associate with taking a walk are orthogonal to the density of the neighborhood itself, and that the negative qualities people see in cities are really a problem of their car-centric design in the US. For example, see a neighborhood like Sunnyside, NY, just a few subway stops from Manhattan: https://www.newyorkitecture.com/wp-content/gallery/sunnyside-gardens/2014-07-12-08-25-22-0007_resize.jpg https://www.newyorkitecture.com/wp-content/gallery/sunnyside... https://www.newyorkitecture.com/wp-content/gallery/sunnyside-gardens/2014-07-12-08-37-03-0023_resize.jpg https://www.newyorkitecture.com/wp-content/gallery/sunnyside... Highly dense row-housing, but with ample green spaces and many pedestrian-only pathways. Has enough density to sustain many local businesses within walking distance, features a number of subway stops easily reachable on foot--it's very possible to live in this neighborhood without driving. It would be impossible to build a low-density neighborhood that works as well without a car, because there won't be enough people to sustain the businesses required to serve them within a walkable distance. And once you start assuming that everyone will own a car and will use it for every errand, then you inevitably get sprawl + congestion + traffic.