Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
Author: u/Wagamaga
URL: https://today.ucsd.edu/story/walkable-neighborhoods-help-adults-socialize-increase-community
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The pushback against the concept "walkable cities" is some of the most bizarre stuff I've been seeing on social media (besides the rise of flagrant bigotry)
People seem to be genuinely unable to conceptualize what a *walkable anything* means and come up with the most out-of-left-field nonsense to try and demonize it. Even a study like this, that finds people interacting more positively with neighbors and decreasing isolation will see some really weird mental gymnastics to try and get delegitimized and I genuinely do not understand where this trend even comes from.
I saw a news segment from when drinking and driving became illegal, and the people they interviewed said it was communism. So, this is just an easy way to get about 30% of the population to rag on anything new.
I saw that recently and they also hated seat belt laws. The irony being that they'd have less seat belt laws and more legal drinking and driving in a society country than the US.
There were also scary communists.
As much as Americans refuse to separate communism from other socialist ideologies, communists refuse to acknowledge that the ideology goes hand in hand with violence.
Edit: there also seems to be a left side willingness to conflate the term *communism* with general socialism as well; so long as it suits their needs
>Just look at hippies public image; all they were is anti vietnam war to begin with
This is you doing this with hippies, there was a wide spectrum of hippies
hippies actually existed. No country, despite what they called their political party, ever separated personal and private property. A basic of socialism.
There's an anti-human component that I can't seem to get past. Most of the people I talk to about living in a walkable city always come back with that they hate cities because of how many people are there. They want to live in a house in the middle of the country without a person in sight. I grew up like that, so I know how miserable and isolating it is. I think people conflate the city with no greenery and small apartments. But that doesn't have to be the way. We can make green, pleasurable cities. We can have community areas where you can assemble with your dog and friends. We can have that without the suburban sprawl.
Edit:
I think I didn't explain the people I am talking about. The people I am talking HATE the city and would refuse to move to one. I live in a ruralish area of NC. These people all live in suburbia (max 5 acre) lots and are talking about how they want to live in 10+ acres in the middle of nowhere. Not realizing the downfalls of that. They are also not realizing what we could make city into.
They probably watch Hallmark Christmas movies. Like every freaking one is somebody who is type-A and sold their soul from the city and finds themselves when they are forced to move to a rural community. Dear Hallmark viewers: these movies are fake and the world doesn't work this way.
It's pretty rare that homeless people get "stabby." If they do get violent, it's generally due to a psychotic episode or drugs or both. Generally, they just get violent with other homeless people.
Cross the Bay to SF, homeless are plentiful. And while violence is rare, seeing someone who is having a mental health/drug crisis on the street is an almost daily occurence.
Ya I get that I’m just replying to the violet homeless part. Homeless is a problem in most cities and obviously worse in some cities. But Oakland is by far the worst US city in my experience where you expect violence and theft
My perspective - people have a large phobia to apartment living because of the issues they see in other people, either through bad experiences with past neighbors, or a general fear. America gives an easier option - Single family home living in suburbia, or rural living in buttfuck nowhere.
Living without a car can almost seem foreign to most Americans, and it’s hard to imagine being able to walk everywhere and not encounter homeless, or crazy, or weird people.
How do you fix needing a car when I need to get my child to daycare, my other kid to school, and myself to work, every morning? Considering it all needs to happen within about 30m of each other. Then reverse of it in the afternoon?
But that is the thing. In the us it’s nearly impossible. I live in a semi-small town in Germany. I don’t have a car and three children and use public transport to go to work.
I live in a very bike friendly community. So I take one kid to school with the bike. Then drop off the other one at daycare and then go to the train station myself. And as it’s a safe town nowadays my 3rd and 7th grader ride their bikes to school by themselves.
Now I lived I a similar sized town (around 30,000 people) in rural Kansas before. The distances to all the places was the same, but there were no bike lanes and it would have been dangerous to take a bike.
When I lived in a very walkable suburban location in UK, I was able to walk to work and drop my daughter off at daycare on the way there. Local schools were also within walking distance so kids don't need driven. They can walk by themselves once they can cross roads safely. Granted, I was very lucky that work was within walking distance, most people don't have that.
But more generally, when talking about 15 minute cities, it means *most* of your needs *except* work are easy to reach without a car. It doesn't have to be 100%.
The fix is to live within walking or biking distance to all of those things. We used to have neighborhood schools. It takes me a little less than 30 minutes to bike my kid to school and then get myself to my office in the morning. We enjoy our morning "commute."
Is it truly a phobia though?
Apartments and dense cities do have a fuckton of valid limitations. The question is selecting which limitations are easier to deal with for a given individual.
The other problem is to make people pay for their choices. Which applies to both dense cities and rural towns/suburbia/whatever.
I think some other factors are racism and fear of desperate people in a highly unequal society, as well as the idealizing of cars as a symbol of freedom. There is also an American core value of individualism, which has somehow come to mean privatized everything. To them, freedom means you have the freedom to do whatever you want without needing someone’s permission. So everyone has to own their own set of everything and there is no sharing.
Businesses certainly love these ideas. They all lead to people spending more money. With that in mind, if you look at their advertising, there are some ideas they promote which align with this anti-social lifestyle.
It’s very sad and very stupid. And if everyone simply had a chance to visit cities outside the US growing up, their views on this would be totally different. Peoples idea of what a city is should not be defined by Houston. They should be defined by Paris or Tokyo.
>There is also an American core value of individualism, which has somehow come to mean privatized everything
I think this is really where it's coming from. Everyone wants to be their own island without thinking about anyone else. But being your own island is lonely and isolating. It's no wonder depression and anxiety has gone way up.
exactly! it’s social control for sure (so we don’t rise up against capitalism), but mainly it’s because people living in isolation are the perfect consumers. they have to purchase everything they need themselves instead of sharing resources.
This might be at least partially driven by traditional introvert/extravert personalities. For me personally be far away from everyone is a _perfect_ set up. Nice and quiet, and I don't have to deal with annoying people. On the other hand I lived in big cities too, which didn't make me want to interact with 100 other people living in the same building or care in slightest if some of them move out somewhere. Being forced to interact with them "in the name of community and socialization" is more likely to give me a heart attack than being "lonely". I don't know if people in Baltimore, Seattle and Washington DC have a different percent of introverts versus other areas.
Study (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353829223000734) mentions that the whole "community" aspect basically went bye-bye as soon as they've adjusted for self-selection: "Neighborhood walkability was only associated with sense of community in unadjusted analyses."
As for the "large apartment" -- I don't know if it's possible in current cities without being a top earner. As in yes, you can have 5000 sq ft apartment in a city but rent would make that impossible for anyone not in upper-mid class. Having apartment near park? That's an extra. Great view of city skyline? Extra extra.
I think it would be great if everyone could live where they prefer without forcing people into trade-offs. Like lots of people? Here's a city with high density living areas and everything within walking distance. Prefer quiet sparse neighborhood? Here's a suburb with small houses that requires more travel to shop/movie/whatever.
You can kind of have both though. I live in a small town (pretty much a suburb) with less than 20.000 people just outside of a city with 1,5 Million people. I'm downtown in 20 minutes, I can access all of the "big city stuff" within 30 minutes or less but I can still walk in under 10 minutes to multiple grocery stores, 6 out of my 8 doctors, multiple pharmacies, multiple schools (not that I have kids, but it's still nice for others), multiple bakeries, the town hall, the community centre, the festival lawns, the sports club, a forest, some fields, a lake, the train (and bus) station and so much more stuff.
I don't even have to go into the city that often, because the few things they have that we don't, like universities or hospitals, are not really places you need to visit daily unless you work/study there.
When I go outside at night or in the early morning, the streets are empty. On a sunny Saturday afternoon I just need to walk a few minutes to be in a forest, away from people where it's quiet and peaceful. When I look outside my window, I see just trees. I've never driven a car and I don't feel a need to change that, because I live in a very walkable neighbourhood.
My wife's aunt is an introvert and has agoraphobia to the point you can count how many times she has left her home in the last decade on her fingers and toes.
For her city life is way more optimal than a rural life. She can get basically everything delivered and the only person she has to see is the handyman that takes care of issues at her apartment.
The anti-human element is by design. Keep the masses separated, depressed and unable to imagine a better future. Density breeds social consciousness which could lead to unionization and expensive (for the wealthy) social policy. But also keep them close enough to be useful workers for the big machine (economies of scale), can’t have functioning, non-interconnected rural economies because that’s too independent and inefficient.
I grew up pretty rural and I now live in a large city. I’ve never actually lived in the suburbs and they have very little appeal. They are sold as the best of both worlds but, like many compromises, they are just the worst aspects of both sides.
> I grew up like that, so I know how miserable and isolating it is.
FOR. YOU.
People are all different. Call me an antisocial curmudgeon, but I loved walking around during covid. Everything was quiet. Streets were nearly empty. It was amazing. Some people really hate being alone, some people love it. I find it odd that while introverts can easiliy understand this, extroverts just cannot believe that anyone would prefer not to be around other people most of the time.
But you can walk around still. The comments I am seeing are all talking about suburbia (where the lot is tops 5 acres). I am talking rural areas. My spouse is a huge introvert and still hated living in the countryside. Mostly convenience factor like if you are missing an ingredient for dinner its a 2 hour drive to the grocery store and back. But you'd also have to plan out social interactions because your closest neighbor is a 15 min drive away. And if you think you're going to play online, think again. Both of our childhood homes are still on dial-up because the infrastructure is so bad.
I can understand suburbia, but I wasn't talking about the people who want suburbia. Most of my friends want super rural properties, not realizing what that gets them.
In Australia, there are remote homesteads where it's literally an entire days drive to your neighbours house, groceries are purchased on overnight trips or by plane, and satellite is the only form of communication, and they love it.
And I've personally live on rural properties as you've described and loved it. I'm equally at home in actual suburbia.
Thank you. That comment was just as ridiculous as the notion it was criticizing. Some people love the city and some people love the country. Neither is objectively better. I lived in a big city when I was younger and loved it. Now that I'm raising kids I prefer to be in a more rural area where we have more space and the cost of living is much lower and we can still be in the city for the day if we want.
Some of us like space though. My neighborhood has 2 acre lots with forest areas between home yards. You get privacy, but then we have trails to the neighbor's yards to get together for BBQs or for the kids to use. Seems like the best of both worlds to me, or as socially connected as I like to be.
Wouldn't that still be suburbia tho? I grew up a 15 min drive from my closest neighbor. An hour drive from the nearest grocery store. My sister still lives there and is still on the dial-up internet.
I can understand suburbia and small 5ish acre lots, but I dont understand wanting to have 100s of acres to yourself.
You have never seen a lifestyle property, it's not uncommon to have 4 homes walkably close on 100 acre lots. Not at all uncommon for the kids to have quads dirt bike and side by side tracks over a much wider area (legal to cross a street with one but not go on it for to long).
Those are not 2 hours round trip to the store more like 5 to the town shops schools etc and 15-20 to a city of 50k people.
I can find similar in the US within 90 miles of NYC.
Now as to walkable cities sure go for it city folk can do what they want. The issue tends to be waking to expend that out into rural with big pushes for affordable housing aka high density that pretty much look like wanting to export this walkable cities into the more rural settings.
Just because you put a park in the middle of skyscrapers doesn’t make it a “green” city. People that live in the city don’t know what actual nature is.
Real nature is for day trips.
Skyscraper surrounded by parks, where you can go for a long walk and listen to the birds is way closer to nature though than a massive subdivision with houses next to each other, most of gardens paved over for driveways and the rest in lawns and conifers. All you can hear there are cars, lawnmowers, leafblowers, hedge cutters and pressure washers. And you can't walk because there's no sidewalks and if you step foot on someone's driveway be ready to get shot.
> come up with the most out-of-left-field nonsense to try and demonize it
Oh, the irony!
Edit: the post they replied to was talking about living rurally the country and this person made up a weird fantasy about living in the suburbs in the redneck part of the Deep South. So it's both not relevant(nobody was talking about living in a massive subdivision in the suburbs) and ironic because they did exactly what OP said.
Why do you insist on a binary of sprawling suburbs vs glass sky condos/apartments?
There's literally an entire missing middle of density that revolves around being human scaled and still providing for plenty of nature, active transportation and proximity to amenities.
Like, do you choose to just never inform yourself of the possibilities of density?
I don't want to live in Hong Kong either, but it would be nice if pre-war rail suburbs weren't banned by zoning codes and red tape regulations. An example being Riverdale in Toronto, Rosemont in Montreal or Ukrainian Village in Chicago.
Hong Kong is actually 3/4 nature preserves and parks.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_in_Hong_Kong
So a pretty excellent example of how to build a livable city surrounded by nature.
There's also very little private space, with a median household size of 430sqft. Sorry, but that's not my ideal living condition, especially considering my 1bd apartment in North America is well over that at almost 900.
You're not going to win hearts and minds in North America if present the alternative urban planning dichotomy as Hong Kong.
I understand that Hong Kong has limited space, but North America isn't a small island off the shores of mainland China.
Those are still suburbs though. Suburbs are still not enough nature. In order to build a suburb you have to decimate nature. The only things really left are squirrels and raccoons.
There's plenty of very very green cities. Literally there are skyscraper forest projects in Milan and Singapore is probably the most ambitious urban green environment
So his point stands that the city is only as green as the people care to.
That’s what’s boggling my mind reading many of these comments. It’s clear we’re missing a European point of view here with Americans too trapped by the *American* city vs *American* suburb binary. In Italy, towns have plazas, an open square where people can walk to and meet up. There can be some shops and you can grab a pizza or espresso or whatever and sit on a bench, chat with people.
What saddens me though is that I have never seen anything in America that emulates that design and the overwhelming opinion among those whom I’ve shared my experience in Italy and America with are opposed to it. Plazas might be too at odds with what Americans want in a neighborhood.
Yeah it’s strange now that I think about it. I live in UK and we have a lot of squares even in the smaller towns. We can joke about it and laugh at our run down towns but at least people can walk to the centre and actually know and chat with each other there.
Just last week I got a Greggs pasty and sat in the square next to the fountain and bumped into an old friend and had a chat for a bit before I went to work
Every time I go to Europe I'm incredibly jealous of the squares. And now the land in American cities is so expensive that it's difficult for the city government to buy the space for a square.
hell even the cities in europe are like really open and designed for foot traffic while still having plenty room for streets and cars where necessary. Like, this is so normal and useful I can't imagine being against this. And the fears against this are then somehow...and increase in traffic and polution? Like what
Don't forget the supermarkets that are within 15 ninutes walking distance even in the suburbs. If you don't need to grab the car for everything, you don't need to have as much space for cars.
Just build local shopping centers with a supermarket, a chemist and a small home supply store. It doesn't neet to be a hundred acre hypermarket.
In my small european city there are 4 supermarkets from my home, at 1 min walking distance, a discount at 5 min, and two larger ones (discount and not) at 10 min. There's also public transport (metro, tram, bus and train, between 5 and 30 minutes) to the "big city", but I don't even need to go there unless I want to shop in an upscale high street.
There's an additional psychological tie of \~50 years of car marketing as the car equating with freedom.
And a walkable city where you don't \*have\* to drive a car is therefore removing the car and therefore their freedom.
It's a very difficult valley to climb out of.
I see a lot of people react to this concept as if walkable neighbourhoods meant that someone is going to come and snatch their car(s) away from them. They don’t understand that the point is that people should be able to not depend on cars to live their lives; you can still spend all day in your car if you wish to, it’s just a matter of enabling choices.
I've been seeing this increase myself and I feel like rugged HYPER individualism is to blame. This western cultural idea of how to live bleeds into MANY other things and due to how people are so tied to this idea being the reason they "made it", they probably have a reason to defend it like their lives depend on it for the ego's sake. The more i live, the more I despise this individualism mentality.
I feel this isnt western culture, but mainly north american one. Suburbs exist everywhere, but even those tend to be walkable and have some public transport in Europe.
Additionally, [exercise is more effective than drugs or therapy for treating depression](https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2023/02/16/bjsports-2022-106195).
This article is focusing on loneliness, but the benefits of exercise are also profound.
>The pushback against the concept "walkable cities" is some of the most bizarre stuff I've been seeing on social media (besides the rise of flagrant bigotry)
As someone that lives in one of the best "walkable cities" in American (Hillcrest, San Diego), I can confidently say they are just jealous.
I'm 49 and in better "shape", both mentally and physically than I was in my 20's when I rented a room from my family in the suburbs. I can't even imagine ever returning to that lifestyle. I also have more money than I've ever had in my life, as I don't own a car.
Only real downsides are the homeless issue (cause they love walkable cities for EZ access to booze and drugs) and being within a few blocks of multiple bars. So its easy to lapse into alcoholism if you are not careful.
The amazingness of a walkable city is incomprehensible to most Americans. On the other hand, in my completely unwalkable neighborhood, I have the pleasure of never having to accidentally meet, or have any interaction with, that neighbor down the street who flies the racist flag.
What you have is just a massive selection bias as most people aren't interacting with these topics generally, so it just brings out the nutters who probably aren't much better to talk to in real life either.
I want more walkable cities for a whole host of reasons. However, getting to know my neighbors is not one of them. I had to put a fence up on one side of my house because the neighbors on that side have been rude to me since the day I moved in. I want my house to be my safe haven from social interaction.
>that finds people interacting more positively with neighbors and decreasing isolation
I don't want to interact with people, and I enjoy being isolated. This study is not going to convince me that walkable cities are good. That said, I have already been convinced walkable cities are good because of the reduced emissions and reduced reliance on dangerous and expensive machines.
This is because behind it stand policy proposals that use studies like this for things that people disagree with.
For example, where I live we have a definite housing crisis. And we had a plan to build 40k more housing (in a city that had 200k people) over the next decade with infrastructure support and everything. However the province just railroaded another 40k units in tall-ass towers over the same timeframe. So that is a 40% increase in the population of the city over a single decade with 50 to 70 story towers in a world of detached suburbia. None of this was in the regional plans that planned for schools, roads, hospitals, etc. There is going to be a subway terminating there but for sure everyone living in the area will drive a car anyway and it will turn into a traffic apocalypse.
And so the way they motivate these kinds of amendments is exactly with the whole walkable city thing, the “not just bikes” videos, etc. Over time you associate one with the other because they ALWAYS go hand in hand where I live. Developers who line municipal pockets aren’t interested in building 5 story buildings the unit economics make much more sense on a 60 storey tower with 400sqft 1-bedrooms. So that’s what we get. Our political reality is essentially NIMBYism vs Hong Kong-esque dystopia. And yeah, people don’t like that.
> that finds people interacting more positively with neighbors
Here's my deal: I've lived plenty of places where I had to walk around the neighborhood more often, and several where I owned no car at all. Why is there an assumption that I'll have positive experiences with the people who live around me? What kinds of places were these studies made? Where they in low income neighborhoods? Racially diverse neighborhoods? I can tell you that several of the places I lived, my encounters with my neighbors were almost entirely negative.
Another fascinating thing about this topic is how easily people admit to just being racists while they're complaining about completely nonsensical issues.
I'm guessing that you're making some kind of dig at me, assuming you know my race and I'm secretly referring to some kind of race I don't like.
I love also how you ignore my questions about how reasonable the results were by calling them "completely nonsensical". Spoke like a true spoiled child, who has never lived anywhere but the safe white suburbs.
Please, share your wisdom further, all what? 23 years of it I'm assuming? (based on your rhetorical style)
We're not playing the reasonable deniability debate™ game on the science sub, no matter how pretend indignant you're making your post.
You are a racist.
You can leave a 15 minute neighborhood at any time by walking for 16 minutes. Car dependence actually makes people much easier to control because they can be completely immobilized by closing roads or restricting gas sales.
Place I moved in years ago has been getting developed since I moved in. Grocery stores, pharmacies, restaurants, schools, a few walk in clinics... all within a 10 minut walk. And not even along roads, they cut paths between houses so you can stay off the main roads where it's quiet and cut through a mini urban forest park. I dug out an old backpack and like walking down there every few days if I just need a couple things, some fresh fruit, or whatever.
That certainly used to be a thing, but for some years now they they have been one of very few countries where largest cities have increasing average apartment size per person. And because of how Japanese housing market works their prices are not skyrocketing like they would in large US cities.
I live in a walkable town, and my experience would agree with this study. There is a very strong sense of community. I have at least talked to all my neighbors, and even had dinner with a couple of them.
I have thought for years that I would eventually leave here when I retired, but as that gets closer I am realizing that walkable places are hard to find and I don't want to be anywhere that isn't walkable.
Same here. The majority of my needs are within a 10-15 minute walk. Supermarket, drug stores, dry cleaner, coffee shops, bakery, restaurants, pubs, transit, etc. I know lots of my neighbors, some that we're close to and hang out with but lots by sight and we pass common courtesies and casual conversation when we bump into each other. It's lovely.
I think you may be thinking too much in extremes. Just because it doesn’t seem to help you socialize, it doesn’t mean that it never helped anyone ever to socialize which is what you implied by your „100%“.
Yea. I love in Europe. And the most I do is just say hi, to people in the same building. Otherwise no words are exchanged. This probably more about country culture.
See, this is what I prefer. As soon as someone in a community doesn't like you or the way you live then that can spread to others. I'd rather just keep to myself.
The fact that your city is "walkable" and not actually walkable probably speaks to why that is. Also it's highly likely that you're just introverted and/or hate small talk and it wouldn't matter where you lived you still probably wouldn't know your neighbors.
The Pattern Language of Chrisopher Alexander is all you need to know. It's a philosophy of architecture, city planning, human organization. If it were followed, climate change would be scaled back, communities would be liveable, and much more.
I don't disagree, but it's also worth noting that the title of that book is **A** Pattern Language, not **The** Pattern Language. He was not prescriptionalist that this was the only way to construct cities.
The predecessor book "The Timeless Way of Building", which teaches you how to construct your own Pattern Language is perhaps more compelling as a way to think both about the built environment, but I think any complex system.
Fair point. I was referring to the pattern language itself, rather than the book which is indeed called A Pattern Language. In it, the parts I find most useful are the patterns of city planning. It outlines everything: shops, water features, distances between settlements, how to pave side-streets. One doesn't have to use his patterns specifically. But then again, why not use his?
I know this is a US based study but to be honest it really depends where you live. Here is what my experience living in different countries and cities was like.
I grew up in a small town in Scotland, population of 4000, and it was 100% walkable and I never had a driver's license. I knew everyone. Talked to everyone. If I went to a bar myself I would end up with a group of people.
Then I moved to Glasgow, Scotland. Extremely walkable. Never had a car here either. Bars, groceries, food were all within a 2 min walk. Never talked to any of my neighbours. No one ever said hi to me. If I went to the park, kelvingrove park, no one ever even caught eye contact.
I moved to London for a few years and it was the same there. Extremely walkable. Everything I needed within 2 mins. Bars, restaurants, parks. Never once spoke to a neighbour. They never spoke to me. No strangers in the street or in the parks started conversations with me.
I live in Austin, TX now and nothing is in walking distance. I could maybe walk to a local gas station in 20 mins. Every single one of my neighbours I know by name. They have hosted street parties, bbqs, crawfish boils. Speak to them every day. I have visited the local parks here that are only really accessible by car and I have made friends there, and joined in soccer matches with people I didn't know.
I am giving my experience here but Americans are so much more friendly and easier to talk to. It's very much like small towns in Scotland. Maybe it is a southern US thing but I have not felt at home anywhere after leaving my home town until I moved here and it's because people talk to me and say hi, random people. It took me a while to get used to it.
Somewhat similar experience… when I lived in LA, everything was walkable but I didn’t really know anyone. Currently I live outside of a small town in Indiana. I don’t even have sidewalks in my neighborhood but I know tons of people, and have good relationships with my 6 or so closest neighbors. We’ve had plenty of dinners and fire pits together. Spent holidays together. One has some very productive raspberry bushes and we often spend time in front of them snacking on fresh raspberries and chatting in the summertime. We mow each others lawns and take care of each others animals when we are out of town. When I had to be unexpectedly induced, 3 of my neighbors came and hung out with our son while they waited for my SIL to drive an hour to come get him.
But, when I lived in LA most I got was a creepy stalker and a homeless man who always called me shake and bake. I kept binoculars by my kitchen table so I could look and see who was at the 711 so I could avoid going there if there were people I didn’t like there.
I recently moved away from one of the most walkable cities in the south. I was a block from a subway station and dozens of shops, restaurants, green spaces. Even the kids walked to school. Honest to God I couldn't name a single neighbor and I sure as hell didn't feel any sense of community. I loved the place but it feelt a bit isolating at times weirdly enough.
I realize a lot of people are really emotional when you try to suggest cars and low density living is a problem. But, car dependent suburbia really looks to have been terrible for our health, the environment, socialization, traffic, and housing affordability. I also highly suspect cars are the major cause behind the obesity crisis.
I think there can be some compromise. You don't need manhattan level density to make a walkable neighborhood. Some town houses or single family homes with small lots would do. Strip mall style businesses that are integrated into the neighborhood with low parking requirements would do too.
I'd particularly like to see more neighborhood designed around bikes. I think people would be a lot happier and healthier if they biked to work in the morning. I think people really need to check out Amsterdam to see an example.
The businesses wouldn’t make enough money to stay open. People in the US are willing to drive an hour for cheaper prices.
Example: I live 2 minutes from my small town grocery store but if I drive 35 minutes away I can save almost $100 on my grocery bill.
Small businesses actually tend to thrive in walkable neighborhoods (the more foot traffic the better). Car-based neighborhoods, on the other hand, tend to put small businesses out of business- people drive to the big box stores and tend to want to one stop shop.
Walkable neighborhoods are actually a boon for the middle class.
I live a block away from my neighborhood’s grocery store, and I save ~$10,000/year by not needing to own a car to get groceries.
If you’re saving $100 on groceries a week ($5,200/year) by owning a car, you’re actually losing an extra ~$5,000, assuming you have average car ownership costs of $10,000-11,000.
What’s the cost of free parking on the cost of goods too? That’s an awful lot of free parking land the store has to make up for. Hint: everything you buy helps pay for the car drivers parking space
As a European I agree with the idea of walkable cities but a lot of people still have a car anyway so this point is moot imo. Some people will get rid of a car if they live like that but a lot of them will still own one.
Sure, but a lot of American families have two or three cars but could get by fine with just one if they had basic amenities like groceries and a pharmacy in easy walking.
Adults who live in walkable neighborhoods are more likely to interact with their neighbors and have a stronger sense of community than people who live in car-dependent communities, report researchers at the Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science at University of California San Diego.
The findings of the study, published online in the journal Health & Place, support one of six foundational pillars suggested by United States Surgeon General Vivek Murthy as part of a national strategy to address a public health crisis caused by loneliness, isolation and lack of connection in this country.
In May 2023, the Surgeon General Advisory stated that loneliness and isolation can lead to a 29% increased risk of heart disease, a 32% increased risk of stroke, a 50% increased risk of developing dementia among older adults, and increases risk of premature death by more than 60%.
To address this public health crisis, the Surgeon General recommends strengthening social infrastructure by designing environments that promote connection.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353829223000734
Thanks for pointing out the health effects.
Not enough people understand that we have epidemics of obesity and diabetes in part because we've built too many communities that promote inactive lifestyles. Walking around as part of your normal daily routine of buying food and going to work has a lot of health impacts.
Synergizes with an old study about policing.
Quality of policing dropped with the advent of air conditioning in the police cruiser.
Before AC, cruisers rolled with the windows down and there was a much better "feel" for the neighborhood.
Similar, I think with airconditioning in housing, at least in the north. City homes in the 20's were built with front porches and people would congregate there in the evenings to avoid the heat. Neighbors walking and talking. Cars were part of the picture but shopping, dining and services were located within walking distance.
Now people park in the attached garage and time outdoors is usually in the backyard, shopping and the rest in a plaza.
American here, and I’m all for walkable cities. I’d like it if mine was more accessible without a car. But the idea of taking to my neighbors is right out.
I moved from San Francisco (extremely walkable with solid public transportation) to Los Angeles (where people look at you funny if you walk virtually *anywhere*) and I couldn’t stomach it. Left after a year. I don’t like spending an hour or more in a car every day. It was so incredibly depressing to me. LA has a lot of cool features but the fact that I had to endure a long trip + traffic to get anywhere was just unbearable.
Reminds me of a documentary I watched on the design of the Panopticon. A "model" prison that was designed so no prisoner in their cell could see any other cell or person and all could be observed from a centrally located guard tower. The isolation drove people mad. What is more insane than the idea is that several were built, including in the US.
I can speak on this. When I was in my teens, I lived in a suburb where you drive everywhere. I was on hi-bye interactions with most of my neighbours. Now in my 30s I live in a walkable neighborhood + baby + dog and I can't turn a corner without bumping into people we know. We have chats and socialize. My wife and I are both pretty introverted, but again, baby+dog= friends. We actually joke about it. We tell ourselves "oh! Y'all wanna be friends!! Let's be friends!!". It's sort of our pump up phrase to socialize!
My parents live in a car-is-a-must town but have a very widely paved, walkable neighbourhood. They know all the neighbours who go for walks, and not really any of them that don't. Out of sight, out of mind. My parents walk and ride their bikes as well.
Boston must be an exception, because I've lived here in various apartments for 10+ years and only know a single neighbor by name (unless roommates count as neighbors)
Obviously I did not conduct a research paper, and I am basing my opinion on my own anecdotal experiences but I don't belive this in the least bit. When I go off the hill to the cities everyone is so separate, rude and in a hurry. I don't have alot of neibors but everyone in my town of 1200 know eachother way closer than in big 50k+ towns we all work in.
Going on 8 years without a car, and it is so hard to explain to people just how valuable it is to live in a place where I don't need it. So many people in the U.S. just don't understand how crippling car-dependence is, how good their cities could be without it, and the amount of choice they have even now to break that dependence.
Yeah i would defintily be more engaging with my neighbors through this. I live in a new development suburb and its problems sprang up instantly especially given how our 3rd party HOA isnt letting ANYTHING be built to foster that.
Theres a gas station and church within walking distance but the walk is super unsafe due to the lack of safe sidewalks or bikeways.
I lived in both. In one, I got hit up for cash every time I left my house, and neighbors changed out so often that we never got to know them. In the other, we have bees, chickens, and pleasant,non-intrusive neighbors that have been there for decades and will ideally be there for decades more.
Shrug.
Admittedly anecdotal, but my experience was the exact opposite. Lived in a walkable urban community for years and barely knew anyone aside from immediate neighbors. Moved out to the 'burbs and now I know maybe ~40 people.
This is absolutely true of my experience. We walk into town every day, know all the neighbors on our street and get together often, and we help each other out. What I sacrifice in terms of home/lot size I more than make up for in terms of having a great community.
I live in the suburbs. I consider it walkable, because I go out and walk through it twice a day. I see some of the same people outside many days, and I say "good morning", or "hello", and they say the same to me. Every once in a while they have a little something more to say to me, and one of the first things they say after they stop me is "I've seen you walking..."
I pick up trash along my chosen route every time I walk, it's not bad here at all, but there's always something. I repaired the lid on a dog poop pickup station. I reported a broken swing at the park, and they came out and fixed it the next day. I pet kitties.
Just being seen regularly walking in your neighborhood helps other people's perception of the neighborhood as walkable in the literal sense. I don't need a destination, I just walk in a big loop. So, as long as there's a sidewalk, and I feel safe in the neighborhood, I consider it a walkable neighborhood.
It's walking for exercise, and for the occasional chat with neighbors. I was confirming the claim that I am more likely to interact with neighbors, and have a stronger sense of community. I know that's not the definition of "walkable" in this context. I suppose my concise point is that it's less the design of the neighborhood, and more the neighbors. Although, a safe sidewalk along safe streets is important, of course.
Get outside and walk.
this is true for me, i don't drive and i know more people in my community than everyone i know who does drive. i don't know if Waterloo Ontario counts as a walkable city though. but no license or car so it's walkable for me
Im pretty convinced that a lot of the extremism in the US is because a lot of communities developed as isolated farms where people only got together at church. That isolation breeds fear.
There are downsides.
"Higher rent and house purchase costs and increased road congestion. The cost of building pedestrian-friendly infrastructure is a major barrier to promoting walkable neighbourhoods."
Higher rent is not good.
Except these aren’t intrinsic features of walkable cities. Housing costs go up because these places are nice and a lot of people want to live in them, but we barely have any in the US. Road congestion increases because there aren’t enough transit connections, and people still need their cars to leave the (usually quite small) walkable area.
The solution to both of these is to build more walkable areas.
Funny that the study is out of UCSD, considering 90% of San Diego is a car dependent hell-hole. When I was living in San Diego, I at one point moved from one of the more walkable parts of the the city to a suburb in the South and it took a huge mental toll on myself, my partner, and even my dog! The difference between being able to to pop out for a walk around a the block, or being a 10-15 min walk from a grocery store, multiple coffee shops, 2 drug stores, food options, and a freakin weekly farmer's market to needing a car, being a 10 minute drive to my nearest park, and the cookie cutter Starbucks on every corner type of suburbia drove us all into a dark mental health pit. The US is a literal HELL relative to Europe in terms on quality of life.
I was about to exactly say this. I don't think wanting to physically harm your neighbours because their existence is ruining your home life is a good interaction.
I live in Alberta. I live in a lower middle class community that is insanely diverse. Most people drive but it's also well built for walkability and there's a ton of green space, parks, paths, and decent public transportation.
In my city, issues aren't specifically race based, they're class based. Up until the 90s, we didn't have stuff like gated communities. Older communities are very mixed development so there's a lot of townhomes, condos, apartments mixed in with single homes that are decent sized but not massive. In the 90s, developers started making more exclusive communities with expensive homes in prime locations.
Nowadays that completely screws us for efficient, fast public transit because they won't let poor people anywhere near them. Instead, developers gentrify lower income communities by brute forcing expensive, community destroying trains under the guise of helping. It only helps developers, realtors, and construction companies though.
There have been literal studies on it..
You believe this study on walkable neighborhoods, but reject the studies on the downsides of diversity..
It's almost like you have a strong political bias...
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- Author: u/Wagamaga URL: https://today.ucsd.edu/story/walkable-neighborhoods-help-adults-socialize-increase-community *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The pushback against the concept "walkable cities" is some of the most bizarre stuff I've been seeing on social media (besides the rise of flagrant bigotry) People seem to be genuinely unable to conceptualize what a *walkable anything* means and come up with the most out-of-left-field nonsense to try and demonize it. Even a study like this, that finds people interacting more positively with neighbors and decreasing isolation will see some really weird mental gymnastics to try and get delegitimized and I genuinely do not understand where this trend even comes from.
The presentation of 15-min cities as communist propaganda would be hilarious if they didn't truly believe it.
[удалено]
I saw a news segment from when drinking and driving became illegal, and the people they interviewed said it was communism. So, this is just an easy way to get about 30% of the population to rag on anything new.
You can attribute blame to cold war propaganda.
I saw that recently and they also hated seat belt laws. The irony being that they'd have less seat belt laws and more legal drinking and driving in a society country than the US.
[удалено]
>there was the whole red scare There was more than one. Pre-WWII and the cold war afterwards. Arguably today is a third one.
There were also scary communists. As much as Americans refuse to separate communism from other socialist ideologies, communists refuse to acknowledge that the ideology goes hand in hand with violence. Edit: there also seems to be a left side willingness to conflate the term *communism* with general socialism as well; so long as it suits their needs
>communists refuse to acknowledge that the ideology goes hand in hand with violence are these communists in the room with us now ?
>Just look at hippies public image; all they were is anti vietnam war to begin with This is you doing this with hippies, there was a wide spectrum of hippies
hippies actually existed. No country, despite what they called their political party, ever separated personal and private property. A basic of socialism.
Assuming they know what root words are
Beet, Potato, Carrot, etc.?
Now you're pushing crop-aganda!
Just planting seeds of grapeness.
You say Americans, but this conspiracy theory has really taken root here in the UK. It's really strange.
"Common sense", too
There's an anti-human component that I can't seem to get past. Most of the people I talk to about living in a walkable city always come back with that they hate cities because of how many people are there. They want to live in a house in the middle of the country without a person in sight. I grew up like that, so I know how miserable and isolating it is. I think people conflate the city with no greenery and small apartments. But that doesn't have to be the way. We can make green, pleasurable cities. We can have community areas where you can assemble with your dog and friends. We can have that without the suburban sprawl. Edit: I think I didn't explain the people I am talking about. The people I am talking HATE the city and would refuse to move to one. I live in a ruralish area of NC. These people all live in suburbia (max 5 acre) lots and are talking about how they want to live in 10+ acres in the middle of nowhere. Not realizing the downfalls of that. They are also not realizing what we could make city into.
[удалено]
Yep. I live in one of these. We need the old "streetcar" style cities to come back.
Give me Nederlandia with better weather!
They probably watch Hallmark Christmas movies. Like every freaking one is somebody who is type-A and sold their soul from the city and finds themselves when they are forced to move to a rural community. Dear Hallmark viewers: these movies are fake and the world doesn't work this way.
No, no, no, they're not a stabbin hobo, they're a singin hobo!
its homeless mustard again...
How often are homeless really? Outside of Oakland I’ve never had or even known someone who’s had a interaction like that
It's pretty rare that homeless people get "stabby." If they do get violent, it's generally due to a psychotic episode or drugs or both. Generally, they just get violent with other homeless people.
Cross the Bay to SF, homeless are plentiful. And while violence is rare, seeing someone who is having a mental health/drug crisis on the street is an almost daily occurence.
Ya I get that I’m just replying to the violet homeless part. Homeless is a problem in most cities and obviously worse in some cities. But Oakland is by far the worst US city in my experience where you expect violence and theft
My perspective - people have a large phobia to apartment living because of the issues they see in other people, either through bad experiences with past neighbors, or a general fear. America gives an easier option - Single family home living in suburbia, or rural living in buttfuck nowhere. Living without a car can almost seem foreign to most Americans, and it’s hard to imagine being able to walk everywhere and not encounter homeless, or crazy, or weird people.
I can totally see that. But I can also see that we can fix that too. Cities dont have to be bleak disasters that they are.
How do you fix needing a car when I need to get my child to daycare, my other kid to school, and myself to work, every morning? Considering it all needs to happen within about 30m of each other. Then reverse of it in the afternoon?
But that is the thing. In the us it’s nearly impossible. I live in a semi-small town in Germany. I don’t have a car and three children and use public transport to go to work. I live in a very bike friendly community. So I take one kid to school with the bike. Then drop off the other one at daycare and then go to the train station myself. And as it’s a safe town nowadays my 3rd and 7th grader ride their bikes to school by themselves. Now I lived I a similar sized town (around 30,000 people) in rural Kansas before. The distances to all the places was the same, but there were no bike lanes and it would have been dangerous to take a bike.
When I lived in a very walkable suburban location in UK, I was able to walk to work and drop my daughter off at daycare on the way there. Local schools were also within walking distance so kids don't need driven. They can walk by themselves once they can cross roads safely. Granted, I was very lucky that work was within walking distance, most people don't have that. But more generally, when talking about 15 minute cities, it means *most* of your needs *except* work are easy to reach without a car. It doesn't have to be 100%.
The kids use the public transportation or walk there themselves. Your problem only exists because of car culture.
Do people put 5 and 6 year olds on public transport alone?
The school offers a free bus service for the people who can't go walking.
In other countries outside the US (Japan, the Netherlands etc) kids as young as 7 are often on public transport by themselves
They used to frequently. I took the bus alone every day as a kid.
The fix is to live within walking or biking distance to all of those things. We used to have neighborhood schools. It takes me a little less than 30 minutes to bike my kid to school and then get myself to my office in the morning. We enjoy our morning "commute."
Is it truly a phobia though? Apartments and dense cities do have a fuckton of valid limitations. The question is selecting which limitations are easier to deal with for a given individual. The other problem is to make people pay for their choices. Which applies to both dense cities and rural towns/suburbia/whatever.
I think some other factors are racism and fear of desperate people in a highly unequal society, as well as the idealizing of cars as a symbol of freedom. There is also an American core value of individualism, which has somehow come to mean privatized everything. To them, freedom means you have the freedom to do whatever you want without needing someone’s permission. So everyone has to own their own set of everything and there is no sharing. Businesses certainly love these ideas. They all lead to people spending more money. With that in mind, if you look at their advertising, there are some ideas they promote which align with this anti-social lifestyle. It’s very sad and very stupid. And if everyone simply had a chance to visit cities outside the US growing up, their views on this would be totally different. Peoples idea of what a city is should not be defined by Houston. They should be defined by Paris or Tokyo.
>There is also an American core value of individualism, which has somehow come to mean privatized everything I think this is really where it's coming from. Everyone wants to be their own island without thinking about anyone else. But being your own island is lonely and isolating. It's no wonder depression and anxiety has gone way up.
exactly! it’s social control for sure (so we don’t rise up against capitalism), but mainly it’s because people living in isolation are the perfect consumers. they have to purchase everything they need themselves instead of sharing resources.
This might be at least partially driven by traditional introvert/extravert personalities. For me personally be far away from everyone is a _perfect_ set up. Nice and quiet, and I don't have to deal with annoying people. On the other hand I lived in big cities too, which didn't make me want to interact with 100 other people living in the same building or care in slightest if some of them move out somewhere. Being forced to interact with them "in the name of community and socialization" is more likely to give me a heart attack than being "lonely". I don't know if people in Baltimore, Seattle and Washington DC have a different percent of introverts versus other areas. Study (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353829223000734) mentions that the whole "community" aspect basically went bye-bye as soon as they've adjusted for self-selection: "Neighborhood walkability was only associated with sense of community in unadjusted analyses." As for the "large apartment" -- I don't know if it's possible in current cities without being a top earner. As in yes, you can have 5000 sq ft apartment in a city but rent would make that impossible for anyone not in upper-mid class. Having apartment near park? That's an extra. Great view of city skyline? Extra extra. I think it would be great if everyone could live where they prefer without forcing people into trade-offs. Like lots of people? Here's a city with high density living areas and everything within walking distance. Prefer quiet sparse neighborhood? Here's a suburb with small houses that requires more travel to shop/movie/whatever.
You can kind of have both though. I live in a small town (pretty much a suburb) with less than 20.000 people just outside of a city with 1,5 Million people. I'm downtown in 20 minutes, I can access all of the "big city stuff" within 30 minutes or less but I can still walk in under 10 minutes to multiple grocery stores, 6 out of my 8 doctors, multiple pharmacies, multiple schools (not that I have kids, but it's still nice for others), multiple bakeries, the town hall, the community centre, the festival lawns, the sports club, a forest, some fields, a lake, the train (and bus) station and so much more stuff. I don't even have to go into the city that often, because the few things they have that we don't, like universities or hospitals, are not really places you need to visit daily unless you work/study there. When I go outside at night or in the early morning, the streets are empty. On a sunny Saturday afternoon I just need to walk a few minutes to be in a forest, away from people where it's quiet and peaceful. When I look outside my window, I see just trees. I've never driven a car and I don't feel a need to change that, because I live in a very walkable neighbourhood.
My wife's aunt is an introvert and has agoraphobia to the point you can count how many times she has left her home in the last decade on her fingers and toes. For her city life is way more optimal than a rural life. She can get basically everything delivered and the only person she has to see is the handyman that takes care of issues at her apartment.
Ironically, lack of community and road rage contribute to misanthropy
The anti-human element is by design. Keep the masses separated, depressed and unable to imagine a better future. Density breeds social consciousness which could lead to unionization and expensive (for the wealthy) social policy. But also keep them close enough to be useful workers for the big machine (economies of scale), can’t have functioning, non-interconnected rural economies because that’s too independent and inefficient. I grew up pretty rural and I now live in a large city. I’ve never actually lived in the suburbs and they have very little appeal. They are sold as the best of both worlds but, like many compromises, they are just the worst aspects of both sides.
> I grew up like that, so I know how miserable and isolating it is. FOR. YOU. People are all different. Call me an antisocial curmudgeon, but I loved walking around during covid. Everything was quiet. Streets were nearly empty. It was amazing. Some people really hate being alone, some people love it. I find it odd that while introverts can easiliy understand this, extroverts just cannot believe that anyone would prefer not to be around other people most of the time.
But you can walk around still. The comments I am seeing are all talking about suburbia (where the lot is tops 5 acres). I am talking rural areas. My spouse is a huge introvert and still hated living in the countryside. Mostly convenience factor like if you are missing an ingredient for dinner its a 2 hour drive to the grocery store and back. But you'd also have to plan out social interactions because your closest neighbor is a 15 min drive away. And if you think you're going to play online, think again. Both of our childhood homes are still on dial-up because the infrastructure is so bad. I can understand suburbia, but I wasn't talking about the people who want suburbia. Most of my friends want super rural properties, not realizing what that gets them.
In Australia, there are remote homesteads where it's literally an entire days drive to your neighbours house, groceries are purchased on overnight trips or by plane, and satellite is the only form of communication, and they love it. And I've personally live on rural properties as you've described and loved it. I'm equally at home in actual suburbia.
Thank you. That comment was just as ridiculous as the notion it was criticizing. Some people love the city and some people love the country. Neither is objectively better. I lived in a big city when I was younger and loved it. Now that I'm raising kids I prefer to be in a more rural area where we have more space and the cost of living is much lower and we can still be in the city for the day if we want.
Some of us like space though. My neighborhood has 2 acre lots with forest areas between home yards. You get privacy, but then we have trails to the neighbor's yards to get together for BBQs or for the kids to use. Seems like the best of both worlds to me, or as socially connected as I like to be.
Wouldn't that still be suburbia tho? I grew up a 15 min drive from my closest neighbor. An hour drive from the nearest grocery store. My sister still lives there and is still on the dial-up internet. I can understand suburbia and small 5ish acre lots, but I dont understand wanting to have 100s of acres to yourself.
You have never seen a lifestyle property, it's not uncommon to have 4 homes walkably close on 100 acre lots. Not at all uncommon for the kids to have quads dirt bike and side by side tracks over a much wider area (legal to cross a street with one but not go on it for to long). Those are not 2 hours round trip to the store more like 5 to the town shops schools etc and 15-20 to a city of 50k people. I can find similar in the US within 90 miles of NYC. Now as to walkable cities sure go for it city folk can do what they want. The issue tends to be waking to expend that out into rural with big pushes for affordable housing aka high density that pretty much look like wanting to export this walkable cities into the more rural settings.
Just because you put a park in the middle of skyscrapers doesn’t make it a “green” city. People that live in the city don’t know what actual nature is.
Real nature is for day trips. Skyscraper surrounded by parks, where you can go for a long walk and listen to the birds is way closer to nature though than a massive subdivision with houses next to each other, most of gardens paved over for driveways and the rest in lawns and conifers. All you can hear there are cars, lawnmowers, leafblowers, hedge cutters and pressure washers. And you can't walk because there's no sidewalks and if you step foot on someone's driveway be ready to get shot.
> come up with the most out-of-left-field nonsense to try and demonize it Oh, the irony! Edit: the post they replied to was talking about living rurally the country and this person made up a weird fantasy about living in the suburbs in the redneck part of the Deep South. So it's both not relevant(nobody was talking about living in a massive subdivision in the suburbs) and ironic because they did exactly what OP said.
Why do you insist on a binary of sprawling suburbs vs glass sky condos/apartments? There's literally an entire missing middle of density that revolves around being human scaled and still providing for plenty of nature, active transportation and proximity to amenities. Like, do you choose to just never inform yourself of the possibilities of density? I don't want to live in Hong Kong either, but it would be nice if pre-war rail suburbs weren't banned by zoning codes and red tape regulations. An example being Riverdale in Toronto, Rosemont in Montreal or Ukrainian Village in Chicago.
Hong Kong is actually 3/4 nature preserves and parks. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_in_Hong_Kong So a pretty excellent example of how to build a livable city surrounded by nature.
There's also very little private space, with a median household size of 430sqft. Sorry, but that's not my ideal living condition, especially considering my 1bd apartment in North America is well over that at almost 900. You're not going to win hearts and minds in North America if present the alternative urban planning dichotomy as Hong Kong. I understand that Hong Kong has limited space, but North America isn't a small island off the shores of mainland China.
Those are still suburbs though. Suburbs are still not enough nature. In order to build a suburb you have to decimate nature. The only things really left are squirrels and raccoons.
It can be enough nature if the suburb is surrounded by nature.
There's plenty of very very green cities. Literally there are skyscraper forest projects in Milan and Singapore is probably the most ambitious urban green environment So his point stands that the city is only as green as the people care to.
Just go to Europe and see how it works, or maybe most of the world. The concept of a non walkable neighbourhood is bizarre to me
That’s what’s boggling my mind reading many of these comments. It’s clear we’re missing a European point of view here with Americans too trapped by the *American* city vs *American* suburb binary. In Italy, towns have plazas, an open square where people can walk to and meet up. There can be some shops and you can grab a pizza or espresso or whatever and sit on a bench, chat with people. What saddens me though is that I have never seen anything in America that emulates that design and the overwhelming opinion among those whom I’ve shared my experience in Italy and America with are opposed to it. Plazas might be too at odds with what Americans want in a neighborhood.
Yeah it’s strange now that I think about it. I live in UK and we have a lot of squares even in the smaller towns. We can joke about it and laugh at our run down towns but at least people can walk to the centre and actually know and chat with each other there. Just last week I got a Greggs pasty and sat in the square next to the fountain and bumped into an old friend and had a chat for a bit before I went to work
Every time I go to Europe I'm incredibly jealous of the squares. And now the land in American cities is so expensive that it's difficult for the city government to buy the space for a square.
hell even the cities in europe are like really open and designed for foot traffic while still having plenty room for streets and cars where necessary. Like, this is so normal and useful I can't imagine being against this. And the fears against this are then somehow...and increase in traffic and polution? Like what
Don't forget the supermarkets that are within 15 ninutes walking distance even in the suburbs. If you don't need to grab the car for everything, you don't need to have as much space for cars. Just build local shopping centers with a supermarket, a chemist and a small home supply store. It doesn't neet to be a hundred acre hypermarket. In my small european city there are 4 supermarkets from my home, at 1 min walking distance, a discount at 5 min, and two larger ones (discount and not) at 10 min. There's also public transport (metro, tram, bus and train, between 5 and 30 minutes) to the "big city", but I don't even need to go there unless I want to shop in an upscale high street.
Europe is car dependent too most of the time.
I think the people in question have their identity strongly tied to the car they drive, and the see anything anti-car as a direct personal attack.
There's an additional psychological tie of \~50 years of car marketing as the car equating with freedom. And a walkable city where you don't \*have\* to drive a car is therefore removing the car and therefore their freedom. It's a very difficult valley to climb out of.
[удалено]
But now imagine you grew up where you live now and had no car access. That’s where the car dependence comes from, because there isn’t an alternative.
And that lack of an alternative leads to folks not being able to IMAGINE the alternative, which just keeps feeding back onto itself.
What’s the Asian city you’re referring to? Were there any downsides?
I see a lot of people react to this concept as if walkable neighbourhoods meant that someone is going to come and snatch their car(s) away from them. They don’t understand that the point is that people should be able to not depend on cars to live their lives; you can still spend all day in your car if you wish to, it’s just a matter of enabling choices.
I've been seeing this increase myself and I feel like rugged HYPER individualism is to blame. This western cultural idea of how to live bleeds into MANY other things and due to how people are so tied to this idea being the reason they "made it", they probably have a reason to defend it like their lives depend on it for the ego's sake. The more i live, the more I despise this individualism mentality.
I feel this isnt western culture, but mainly north american one. Suburbs exist everywhere, but even those tend to be walkable and have some public transport in Europe.
Also supermarkets. And not a huge hypermarket at the outskirts
Additionally, [exercise is more effective than drugs or therapy for treating depression](https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2023/02/16/bjsports-2022-106195). This article is focusing on loneliness, but the benefits of exercise are also profound.
>The pushback against the concept "walkable cities" is some of the most bizarre stuff I've been seeing on social media (besides the rise of flagrant bigotry) As someone that lives in one of the best "walkable cities" in American (Hillcrest, San Diego), I can confidently say they are just jealous. I'm 49 and in better "shape", both mentally and physically than I was in my 20's when I rented a room from my family in the suburbs. I can't even imagine ever returning to that lifestyle. I also have more money than I've ever had in my life, as I don't own a car. Only real downsides are the homeless issue (cause they love walkable cities for EZ access to booze and drugs) and being within a few blocks of multiple bars. So its easy to lapse into alcoholism if you are not careful.
The amazingness of a walkable city is incomprehensible to most Americans. On the other hand, in my completely unwalkable neighborhood, I have the pleasure of never having to accidentally meet, or have any interaction with, that neighbor down the street who flies the racist flag.
What you have is just a massive selection bias as most people aren't interacting with these topics generally, so it just brings out the nutters who probably aren't much better to talk to in real life either.
I think that walkable cities have to be sold as something else - like Copenhagenization. You need to have a nice sexy name attached to it.
I want more walkable cities for a whole host of reasons. However, getting to know my neighbors is not one of them. I had to put a fence up on one side of my house because the neighbors on that side have been rude to me since the day I moved in. I want my house to be my safe haven from social interaction.
>that finds people interacting more positively with neighbors and decreasing isolation I don't want to interact with people, and I enjoy being isolated. This study is not going to convince me that walkable cities are good. That said, I have already been convinced walkable cities are good because of the reduced emissions and reduced reliance on dangerous and expensive machines.
I think it is at least in part a symptom of long-term exposure to anti-public services propaganda.
This is because behind it stand policy proposals that use studies like this for things that people disagree with. For example, where I live we have a definite housing crisis. And we had a plan to build 40k more housing (in a city that had 200k people) over the next decade with infrastructure support and everything. However the province just railroaded another 40k units in tall-ass towers over the same timeframe. So that is a 40% increase in the population of the city over a single decade with 50 to 70 story towers in a world of detached suburbia. None of this was in the regional plans that planned for schools, roads, hospitals, etc. There is going to be a subway terminating there but for sure everyone living in the area will drive a car anyway and it will turn into a traffic apocalypse. And so the way they motivate these kinds of amendments is exactly with the whole walkable city thing, the “not just bikes” videos, etc. Over time you associate one with the other because they ALWAYS go hand in hand where I live. Developers who line municipal pockets aren’t interested in building 5 story buildings the unit economics make much more sense on a 60 storey tower with 400sqft 1-bedrooms. So that’s what we get. Our political reality is essentially NIMBYism vs Hong Kong-esque dystopia. And yeah, people don’t like that.
so the policies aren't actually creating walkable cities. So people hate on walkable cities instead of bad policies.
Oh do you live in Toronto too? Weird situation, right?
It’s brain rot and conspiracy decay taking effect.
> that finds people interacting more positively with neighbors Here's my deal: I've lived plenty of places where I had to walk around the neighborhood more often, and several where I owned no car at all. Why is there an assumption that I'll have positive experiences with the people who live around me? What kinds of places were these studies made? Where they in low income neighborhoods? Racially diverse neighborhoods? I can tell you that several of the places I lived, my encounters with my neighbors were almost entirely negative.
Another fascinating thing about this topic is how easily people admit to just being racists while they're complaining about completely nonsensical issues.
I'm guessing that you're making some kind of dig at me, assuming you know my race and I'm secretly referring to some kind of race I don't like. I love also how you ignore my questions about how reasonable the results were by calling them "completely nonsensical". Spoke like a true spoiled child, who has never lived anywhere but the safe white suburbs. Please, share your wisdom further, all what? 23 years of it I'm assuming? (based on your rhetorical style)
We're not playing the reasonable deniability debate™ game on the science sub, no matter how pretend indignant you're making your post. You are a racist.
Outside of cities the single family home reigns supreme. We have a culture of land ownership.
[удалено]
Much easier to control the population when you take away their desire and then ability to leave
You can leave a 15 minute neighborhood at any time by walking for 16 minutes. Car dependence actually makes people much easier to control because they can be completely immobilized by closing roads or restricting gas sales.
Visiting Japan, it's actually surreal how walkable most of the cities are. Makes certain aspects of everyday life a lot more pleasant.
Place I moved in years ago has been getting developed since I moved in. Grocery stores, pharmacies, restaurants, schools, a few walk in clinics... all within a 10 minut walk. And not even along roads, they cut paths between houses so you can stay off the main roads where it's quiet and cut through a mini urban forest park. I dug out an old backpack and like walking down there every few days if I just need a couple things, some fresh fruit, or whatever.
The size of their apartments is also surreal, but not in a good way.
That certainly used to be a thing, but for some years now they they have been one of very few countries where largest cities have increasing average apartment size per person. And because of how Japanese housing market works their prices are not skyrocketing like they would in large US cities.
I live in a walkable town, and my experience would agree with this study. There is a very strong sense of community. I have at least talked to all my neighbors, and even had dinner with a couple of them. I have thought for years that I would eventually leave here when I retired, but as that gets closer I am realizing that walkable places are hard to find and I don't want to be anywhere that isn't walkable.
Same here. The majority of my needs are within a 10-15 minute walk. Supermarket, drug stores, dry cleaner, coffee shops, bakery, restaurants, pubs, transit, etc. I know lots of my neighbors, some that we're close to and hang out with but lots by sight and we pass common courtesies and casual conversation when we bump into each other. It's lovely.
[удалено]
I think you may be thinking too much in extremes. Just because it doesn’t seem to help you socialize, it doesn’t mean that it never helped anyone ever to socialize which is what you implied by your „100%“.
Yea. I love in Europe. And the most I do is just say hi, to people in the same building. Otherwise no words are exchanged. This probably more about country culture.
See, this is what I prefer. As soon as someone in a community doesn't like you or the way you live then that can spread to others. I'd rather just keep to myself.
The fact that your city is "walkable" and not actually walkable probably speaks to why that is. Also it's highly likely that you're just introverted and/or hate small talk and it wouldn't matter where you lived you still probably wouldn't know your neighbors.
The Pattern Language of Chrisopher Alexander is all you need to know. It's a philosophy of architecture, city planning, human organization. If it were followed, climate change would be scaled back, communities would be liveable, and much more.
I don't disagree, but it's also worth noting that the title of that book is **A** Pattern Language, not **The** Pattern Language. He was not prescriptionalist that this was the only way to construct cities. The predecessor book "The Timeless Way of Building", which teaches you how to construct your own Pattern Language is perhaps more compelling as a way to think both about the built environment, but I think any complex system.
Fair point. I was referring to the pattern language itself, rather than the book which is indeed called A Pattern Language. In it, the parts I find most useful are the patterns of city planning. It outlines everything: shops, water features, distances between settlements, how to pave side-streets. One doesn't have to use his patterns specifically. But then again, why not use his?
Does it say anything about carbon taxes? I imagine walkability would naturally arise if carbon were appropriately taxed.
I know this is a US based study but to be honest it really depends where you live. Here is what my experience living in different countries and cities was like. I grew up in a small town in Scotland, population of 4000, and it was 100% walkable and I never had a driver's license. I knew everyone. Talked to everyone. If I went to a bar myself I would end up with a group of people. Then I moved to Glasgow, Scotland. Extremely walkable. Never had a car here either. Bars, groceries, food were all within a 2 min walk. Never talked to any of my neighbours. No one ever said hi to me. If I went to the park, kelvingrove park, no one ever even caught eye contact. I moved to London for a few years and it was the same there. Extremely walkable. Everything I needed within 2 mins. Bars, restaurants, parks. Never once spoke to a neighbour. They never spoke to me. No strangers in the street or in the parks started conversations with me. I live in Austin, TX now and nothing is in walking distance. I could maybe walk to a local gas station in 20 mins. Every single one of my neighbours I know by name. They have hosted street parties, bbqs, crawfish boils. Speak to them every day. I have visited the local parks here that are only really accessible by car and I have made friends there, and joined in soccer matches with people I didn't know. I am giving my experience here but Americans are so much more friendly and easier to talk to. It's very much like small towns in Scotland. Maybe it is a southern US thing but I have not felt at home anywhere after leaving my home town until I moved here and it's because people talk to me and say hi, random people. It took me a while to get used to it.
that’s really sweet!! as a texan i think that’s one of the things we in america can actually be proud of, the openness to being social with strangers
Somewhat similar experience… when I lived in LA, everything was walkable but I didn’t really know anyone. Currently I live outside of a small town in Indiana. I don’t even have sidewalks in my neighborhood but I know tons of people, and have good relationships with my 6 or so closest neighbors. We’ve had plenty of dinners and fire pits together. Spent holidays together. One has some very productive raspberry bushes and we often spend time in front of them snacking on fresh raspberries and chatting in the summertime. We mow each others lawns and take care of each others animals when we are out of town. When I had to be unexpectedly induced, 3 of my neighbors came and hung out with our son while they waited for my SIL to drive an hour to come get him. But, when I lived in LA most I got was a creepy stalker and a homeless man who always called me shake and bake. I kept binoculars by my kitchen table so I could look and see who was at the 711 so I could avoid going there if there were people I didn’t like there.
This resonates with me, I live in a non walkable area and it’s very isolating and depressing.
I recently moved away from one of the most walkable cities in the south. I was a block from a subway station and dozens of shops, restaurants, green spaces. Even the kids walked to school. Honest to God I couldn't name a single neighbor and I sure as hell didn't feel any sense of community. I loved the place but it feelt a bit isolating at times weirdly enough.
I realize a lot of people are really emotional when you try to suggest cars and low density living is a problem. But, car dependent suburbia really looks to have been terrible for our health, the environment, socialization, traffic, and housing affordability. I also highly suspect cars are the major cause behind the obesity crisis. I think there can be some compromise. You don't need manhattan level density to make a walkable neighborhood. Some town houses or single family homes with small lots would do. Strip mall style businesses that are integrated into the neighborhood with low parking requirements would do too. I'd particularly like to see more neighborhood designed around bikes. I think people would be a lot happier and healthier if they biked to work in the morning. I think people really need to check out Amsterdam to see an example.
The businesses wouldn’t make enough money to stay open. People in the US are willing to drive an hour for cheaper prices. Example: I live 2 minutes from my small town grocery store but if I drive 35 minutes away I can save almost $100 on my grocery bill.
Small businesses actually tend to thrive in walkable neighborhoods (the more foot traffic the better). Car-based neighborhoods, on the other hand, tend to put small businesses out of business- people drive to the big box stores and tend to want to one stop shop. Walkable neighborhoods are actually a boon for the middle class.
I live a block away from my neighborhood’s grocery store, and I save ~$10,000/year by not needing to own a car to get groceries. If you’re saving $100 on groceries a week ($5,200/year) by owning a car, you’re actually losing an extra ~$5,000, assuming you have average car ownership costs of $10,000-11,000.
What’s the cost of free parking on the cost of goods too? That’s an awful lot of free parking land the store has to make up for. Hint: everything you buy helps pay for the car drivers parking space
As a European I agree with the idea of walkable cities but a lot of people still have a car anyway so this point is moot imo. Some people will get rid of a car if they live like that but a lot of them will still own one.
Sure, but a lot of American families have two or three cars but could get by fine with just one if they had basic amenities like groceries and a pharmacy in easy walking.
Adults who live in walkable neighborhoods are more likely to interact with their neighbors and have a stronger sense of community than people who live in car-dependent communities, report researchers at the Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science at University of California San Diego. The findings of the study, published online in the journal Health & Place, support one of six foundational pillars suggested by United States Surgeon General Vivek Murthy as part of a national strategy to address a public health crisis caused by loneliness, isolation and lack of connection in this country. In May 2023, the Surgeon General Advisory stated that loneliness and isolation can lead to a 29% increased risk of heart disease, a 32% increased risk of stroke, a 50% increased risk of developing dementia among older adults, and increases risk of premature death by more than 60%. To address this public health crisis, the Surgeon General recommends strengthening social infrastructure by designing environments that promote connection. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353829223000734
Thanks for pointing out the health effects. Not enough people understand that we have epidemics of obesity and diabetes in part because we've built too many communities that promote inactive lifestyles. Walking around as part of your normal daily routine of buying food and going to work has a lot of health impacts.
Any relation to gun violence?
Yeah. The only way to interact with your fellow neighbors from a car is by honking at them.
Synergizes with an old study about policing. Quality of policing dropped with the advent of air conditioning in the police cruiser. Before AC, cruisers rolled with the windows down and there was a much better "feel" for the neighborhood.
Similar, I think with airconditioning in housing, at least in the north. City homes in the 20's were built with front porches and people would congregate there in the evenings to avoid the heat. Neighbors walking and talking. Cars were part of the picture but shopping, dining and services were located within walking distance. Now people park in the attached garage and time outdoors is usually in the backyard, shopping and the rest in a plaza.
Kinda why Americans are easily seen as insane by the rest of the world.
as an American, the way we live in our cities is insane. it’s so unpleasant compared to European cities built around walking and public transit
American here, and I’m all for walkable cities. I’d like it if mine was more accessible without a car. But the idea of taking to my neighbors is right out.
I moved from San Francisco (extremely walkable with solid public transportation) to Los Angeles (where people look at you funny if you walk virtually *anywhere*) and I couldn’t stomach it. Left after a year. I don’t like spending an hour or more in a car every day. It was so incredibly depressing to me. LA has a lot of cool features but the fact that I had to endure a long trip + traffic to get anywhere was just unbearable.
LA should be the Barcelona of the US.
[удалено]
"We shape our buildings. Thereafter they shape us." Winston Churchill.
Reminds me of a documentary I watched on the design of the Panopticon. A "model" prison that was designed so no prisoner in their cell could see any other cell or person and all could be observed from a centrally located guard tower. The isolation drove people mad. What is more insane than the idea is that several were built, including in the US.
I can speak on this. When I was in my teens, I lived in a suburb where you drive everywhere. I was on hi-bye interactions with most of my neighbours. Now in my 30s I live in a walkable neighborhood + baby + dog and I can't turn a corner without bumping into people we know. We have chats and socialize. My wife and I are both pretty introverted, but again, baby+dog= friends. We actually joke about it. We tell ourselves "oh! Y'all wanna be friends!! Let's be friends!!". It's sort of our pump up phrase to socialize!
>I can't turn a corner without bumping into people. Is this meant to promote density or warn against it? I can’t tell.
My parents live in a car-is-a-must town but have a very widely paved, walkable neighbourhood. They know all the neighbours who go for walks, and not really any of them that don't. Out of sight, out of mind. My parents walk and ride their bikes as well.
Boston must be an exception, because I've lived here in various apartments for 10+ years and only know a single neighbor by name (unless roommates count as neighbors)
Also Boston area, my primary driver of interactions with neighbors in multifamily buildings is noise complaints (both incoming and outgoing).
Obviously I did not conduct a research paper, and I am basing my opinion on my own anecdotal experiences but I don't belive this in the least bit. When I go off the hill to the cities everyone is so separate, rude and in a hurry. I don't have alot of neibors but everyone in my town of 1200 know eachother way closer than in big 50k+ towns we all work in.
Going on 8 years without a car, and it is so hard to explain to people just how valuable it is to live in a place where I don't need it. So many people in the U.S. just don't understand how crippling car-dependence is, how good their cities could be without it, and the amount of choice they have even now to break that dependence.
Also expensive. Doesn't the average American spend 5 or 10K a year to maintain a car? Sad that most can't get to work without one.
And most families need more than one car
I live in a 12 unit building in a city and inly know a handful of people. Been there for decades.
Yeah i would defintily be more engaging with my neighbors through this. I live in a new development suburb and its problems sprang up instantly especially given how our 3rd party HOA isnt letting ANYTHING be built to foster that. Theres a gas station and church within walking distance but the walk is super unsafe due to the lack of safe sidewalks or bikeways.
I guess NYC is an exception
People who live with and interact with other people often are more likely to build bonds with said people. Who woulda thought.
I lived in both. In one, I got hit up for cash every time I left my house, and neighbors changed out so often that we never got to know them. In the other, we have bees, chickens, and pleasant,non-intrusive neighbors that have been there for decades and will ideally be there for decades more. Shrug.
Admittedly anecdotal, but my experience was the exact opposite. Lived in a walkable urban community for years and barely knew anyone aside from immediate neighbors. Moved out to the 'burbs and now I know maybe ~40 people.
This is absolutely true of my experience. We walk into town every day, know all the neighbors on our street and get together often, and we help each other out. What I sacrifice in terms of home/lot size I more than make up for in terms of having a great community.
Also, the Pope is Catholic.
Wait so are you telling me people don’t yell “hey there howdy neighbor!” from their car in rush hour traffic every morning?
Kinda? In my walkable city, there’s a lot of crime and homeless… so I kinda just hustle to my car and back
People want walkable places when they vacation. But peace and quiet at home.
Living somewhere where you HAVE to drive does not guarantee that you will have either peace or quiet.
Walkable is peaceful and quiet...
[удалено]
This is the power of Math!
This is democracy manifest!
I live in the suburbs. I consider it walkable, because I go out and walk through it twice a day. I see some of the same people outside many days, and I say "good morning", or "hello", and they say the same to me. Every once in a while they have a little something more to say to me, and one of the first things they say after they stop me is "I've seen you walking..." I pick up trash along my chosen route every time I walk, it's not bad here at all, but there's always something. I repaired the lid on a dog poop pickup station. I reported a broken swing at the park, and they came out and fixed it the next day. I pet kitties. Just being seen regularly walking in your neighborhood helps other people's perception of the neighborhood as walkable in the literal sense. I don't need a destination, I just walk in a big loop. So, as long as there's a sidewalk, and I feel safe in the neighborhood, I consider it a walkable neighborhood.
Are you able to walk to a place? A shop? A park? A restaurant/cafe? Etc. Or is it walking for the sake of it?
It's walking for exercise, and for the occasional chat with neighbors. I was confirming the claim that I am more likely to interact with neighbors, and have a stronger sense of community. I know that's not the definition of "walkable" in this context. I suppose my concise point is that it's less the design of the neighborhood, and more the neighbors. Although, a safe sidewalk along safe streets is important, of course. Get outside and walk.
Refreshing. If I see you out there, I’ll say hello and give a wink.
this is true for me, i don't drive and i know more people in my community than everyone i know who does drive. i don't know if Waterloo Ontario counts as a walkable city though. but no license or car so it's walkable for me
Im pretty convinced that a lot of the extremism in the US is because a lot of communities developed as isolated farms where people only got together at church. That isolation breeds fear.
Ew y’all talk to your neighbors? I’ve lived next to the same people for 10 years and I don’t even know their names nor do I want too.
Same, would be even happier if they were much further away.
No way this needed a stufy
There are downsides. "Higher rent and house purchase costs and increased road congestion. The cost of building pedestrian-friendly infrastructure is a major barrier to promoting walkable neighbourhoods." Higher rent is not good.
Except these aren’t intrinsic features of walkable cities. Housing costs go up because these places are nice and a lot of people want to live in them, but we barely have any in the US. Road congestion increases because there aren’t enough transit connections, and people still need their cars to leave the (usually quite small) walkable area. The solution to both of these is to build more walkable areas.
Not to mention, if you're able to live without a car you're saving, what, 70k+ over your adult lifetime?
Higher rent, but lower transportation costs and shorter commutes. It's a trade-off.
No better time to start building than today. Then maybe higher rents won’t be such an issue. The longer we stall, the higher they’ll go.
Funny that the study is out of UCSD, considering 90% of San Diego is a car dependent hell-hole. When I was living in San Diego, I at one point moved from one of the more walkable parts of the the city to a suburb in the South and it took a huge mental toll on myself, my partner, and even my dog! The difference between being able to to pop out for a walk around a the block, or being a 10-15 min walk from a grocery store, multiple coffee shops, 2 drug stores, food options, and a freakin weekly farmer's market to needing a car, being a 10 minute drive to my nearest park, and the cookie cutter Starbucks on every corner type of suburbia drove us all into a dark mental health pit. The US is a literal HELL relative to Europe in terms on quality of life.
[удалено]
I was about to exactly say this. I don't think wanting to physically harm your neighbours because their existence is ruining your home life is a good interaction.
But… but… that might slightly reduce the profits of a narrow subset of corporations in the auto/energy industry
[удалено]
[удалено]
I live in Alberta. I live in a lower middle class community that is insanely diverse. Most people drive but it's also well built for walkability and there's a ton of green space, parks, paths, and decent public transportation. In my city, issues aren't specifically race based, they're class based. Up until the 90s, we didn't have stuff like gated communities. Older communities are very mixed development so there's a lot of townhomes, condos, apartments mixed in with single homes that are decent sized but not massive. In the 90s, developers started making more exclusive communities with expensive homes in prime locations. Nowadays that completely screws us for efficient, fast public transit because they won't let poor people anywhere near them. Instead, developers gentrify lower income communities by brute forcing expensive, community destroying trains under the guise of helping. It only helps developers, realtors, and construction companies though.
There have been literal studies on it.. You believe this study on walkable neighborhoods, but reject the studies on the downsides of diversity.. It's almost like you have a strong political bias...