5 ms·

> No, when people talk about the “walkability” of an area, they are almost always talking about the sheer density of businesses in the area not about safety. Ho

> No, when people talk about the “walkability” of an area, they are almost always talking about the sheer density of businesses in the area not about safety. How they can walk to the grocery store, and their dentist, and their favorite bar, and also three different art galleries. How everything they need is never more than a 15–minute walk away. How each parking lot represents a wasted opportunity, because there are no services there, and nobody lives there either. I guess I’m confused why people wouldn’t want this. Walking through empty car parks is unpleasant, and discouraging people from doing it, and it’s obviously not benefiting drivers either. I’m lucky enough to live in place where I can walk to shops, parks, cafes, transport etc etc within 15-20mins, and do so under cover of trees, surrounded by green, and without crossing roads due to well designed pedestrian facilities. This is all in a medium built area, and leads to wonderful quality of life. Why wouldn’t people want to live like this? Visiting the U.S. I’m honestly bamboozled that people seem to want live surrounded by car parks, having to drive from place to place, because walking is almost impossible. Not just due to car parks, but also because the boundaries between car parks and businesses seemed to be designed to prevent foot traffic. The U.S. strange belief that good walkability is something that can’t happen in the U.S. for reasons, is right up there with the U.S. belief that effective gun control can’t be implemented in U.S. for reasons, or trains and public transport can’t be implemented in the U.S. for reasons either. All off strikes me as weird given how much evidence that these thing can work in a country like the U.S., with plenty of that evidence existing in the U.S. own past! There’s an old quote attributed to Churchill that I think summarises my views very succinctly “You can depend upon the Americans to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted every other possibility.”. I look forward to the day the U.S. has exhausted every other possibility, no doubt they’ll learn plenty of valuable lessons for everyone else along the way.

wilg 3y ago
Nobody in this thread is disagreeing with you, and in fact, a vast majority of Americans do want walkable cities according to this survey I just googled: https://www.nar.realtor/newsroom/new-nar-survey-finds-americans-prefer-walkable-communities https://www.nar.realtor/newsroom/new-nar-survey-finds-americ... GP is just pointing out its interesting our tolerance for long walks seems to have decreased, which is not a commonly discussed factor. Also that pedestrian safety is not necessarily why people do not want to walk. (I agree with this, I don't think average people think about it at all. Though I do think they think about it for bikes.) Perhaps lowering costs of car transport or increased comfort or something like that contributed.
- db48x 3y ago
  Correct. However, I do partly disagree with avianlyric: > I guess I’m confused why people wouldn’t want this. > Visiting the U.S. I’m honestly bamboozled that people seem to want… It is very parochial to believe that everyone will want the same things as you. Some people want open fields of wildflowers, farmland, pastures, creeks, shady forests, mountain paths, and perhaps a few neighbors. You can’t get any of that in an urban area. Yes, you might find parks and shaded avenues in a nice urban area, but those are a far cry from real nature. Many others want to live in a suburban area. They want everything within 15 minutes walk of them to be a school, or a church, or a neighbor’s house. They want to sit in the back yard with a cold drink on a hot day and hear children playing near by, with the drone of a lawn mower in the distance. They want to build a deck there in the back yard, and invite their friends over for dinner on that deck. They want to plant an oak tree when they move in, and one day hang a rope swing from it for their grandchildren to swing on. For these people, driving to a grocery store and parking in parking lots are just things they put up with in order to get what they really want.
  - avianlyric 3y ago
    > It is very parochial to believe that everyone will want the same things as you. I appreciate the point you make, and I certainly don’t believe that everyone wants the same things I do. But I also think that it’s false dichotomy to say you can either have walkability or you can have cars and car parks. That’s simply not true. The Netherlands has plenty of fantastic examples of cities, towns, villages, business parks and industrial areas that are all friendly to pedestrians and bikes, and not just endless slabs of asphalt. Plentiful public transport, that makes it easy to get anywhere without a car. I personally don’t accept the idea that cars are essential for people to have options in their living environments, to say they are just strikes me as an immense lack of imagination. > For these people, driving to a grocery store and parking in parking lots are just things they put up with in order to get what they really want. Your point here would carry more weight, if it was legal in the U.S. to build anything except huge empty suburbs, with soulless car park shops miles away. US planning law simply doesn’t allow any other form of building, so people can’t choose anything else. There are obviously small fragments of the U.S. that buck this trend, built before modern planning laws, but there’s so much demand for them, only the wealthiest can afford to live there.

wilg 3y ago

Nobody in this thread is disagreeing with you, and in fact, a vast majority of Americans do want walkable cities according to this survey I just googled: https://www.nar.realtor/newsroom/new-nar-survey-finds-americans-prefer-walkable-communities https://www.nar.realtor/newsroom/new-nar-survey-finds-americ... GP is just pointing out its interesting our tolerance for long walks seems to have decreased, which is not a commonly discussed factor. Also that pedestrian safety is not necessarily why people do not want to walk. (I agree with this, I don't think average people think about it at all. Though I do think they think about it for bikes.) Perhaps lowering costs of car transport or increased comfort or something like that contributed.

db48x 3y ago
Correct. However, I do partly disagree with avianlyric: > I guess I’m confused why people wouldn’t want this. > Visiting the U.S. I’m honestly bamboozled that people seem to want… It is very parochial to believe that everyone will want the same things as you. Some people want open fields of wildflowers, farmland, pastures, creeks, shady forests, mountain paths, and perhaps a few neighbors. You can’t get any of that in an urban area. Yes, you might find parks and shaded avenues in a nice urban area, but those are a far cry from real nature. Many others want to live in a suburban area. They want everything within 15 minutes walk of them to be a school, or a church, or a neighbor’s house. They want to sit in the back yard with a cold drink on a hot day and hear children playing near by, with the drone of a lawn mower in the distance. They want to build a deck there in the back yard, and invite their friends over for dinner on that deck. They want to plant an oak tree when they move in, and one day hang a rope swing from it for their grandchildren to swing on. For these people, driving to a grocery store and parking in parking lots are just things they put up with in order to get what they really want.
- avianlyric 3y ago
  > It is very parochial to believe that everyone will want the same things as you. I appreciate the point you make, and I certainly don’t believe that everyone wants the same things I do. But I also think that it’s false dichotomy to say you can either have walkability or you can have cars and car parks. That’s simply not true. The Netherlands has plenty of fantastic examples of cities, towns, villages, business parks and industrial areas that are all friendly to pedestrians and bikes, and not just endless slabs of asphalt. Plentiful public transport, that makes it easy to get anywhere without a car. I personally don’t accept the idea that cars are essential for people to have options in their living environments, to say they are just strikes me as an immense lack of imagination. > For these people, driving to a grocery store and parking in parking lots are just things they put up with in order to get what they really want. Your point here would carry more weight, if it was legal in the U.S. to build anything except huge empty suburbs, with soulless car park shops miles away. US planning law simply doesn’t allow any other form of building, so people can’t choose anything else. There are obviously small fragments of the U.S. that buck this trend, built before modern planning laws, but there’s so much demand for them, only the wealthiest can afford to live there.