55% of Americans say they would prefer to live in a community where houses are larger and farther away from amenities – compared to 44% who say the opposite.
It’s well-known that how you ask the question in a survey can drastically skew the response, and so we have to interpret these results based on the specific questions they asked.
We know from sale prices that people actually covet walkable areas, so much so that the accusation of “rich elitist” gets tossed at proponents of walkable cities. Those places are so much more expensive. So maybe people are thinking of “houses that I can afford” when they answer this survey? Or, they’re answering it from the perspective of already needing a car, so a little extra driving is no big thing.
What would the results be if they asked things like, “Do you prefer neighborhoods where kids can safely play outdoors, or neighborhoods where there is too much traffic danger?” Or, if that’s too biased, “where children can walk to school versus taking a bus or being driven?” Maybe break up the question, “Do you prefer to have stores located near where you live, or do you want them farther away?”
There are lots of different ways to ask, and the different results would be informative.
(Also, this survey relies on self-reported urban/rural distinctions, and those answers are wildly inaccurate, to say the least.)
We know from sale prices that people actually covet walkable areas, so much so that the accusation of “rich elitist” gets tossed at proponents of walkable cities.
We can also tell by the existence of zoning laws. If the demand for larger lots were really that high, the market would develop like that on its own without needing minimum lot size laws to force it.
These could be factors but I do think this is probably accurate overall. Walkable areas are expensive primarily because they’re in such short supply. It doesn’t take a majority to make it expensive, just a slice of the population larger than the people who can actually fit in such places. And since we’ve made dense urban development illegal in like 99% of the country, naturally any amount of people wanting to live in such places is too much.
Ultimately I think this is a problem created by large, majoritarian government. The suburban majority decides urban design and the rest have little to no power to object.
I think tying “big” to “car-based” and “small” to “walkable” is probably skewing the results a bit. I doubt most people would choose “small” regardless of what follows it.
It’s well-known that how you ask the question in a survey can drastically skew the response, and so we have to interpret these results based on the specific questions they asked.
We know from sale prices that people actually covet walkable areas, so much so that the accusation of “rich elitist” gets tossed at proponents of walkable cities. Those places are so much more expensive. So maybe people are thinking of “houses that I can afford” when they answer this survey? Or, they’re answering it from the perspective of already needing a car, so a little extra driving is no big thing.
What would the results be if they asked things like, “Do you prefer neighborhoods where kids can safely play outdoors, or neighborhoods where there is too much traffic danger?” Or, if that’s too biased, “where children can walk to school versus taking a bus or being driven?” Maybe break up the question, “Do you prefer to have stores located near where you live, or do you want them farther away?”
There are lots of different ways to ask, and the different results would be informative.
(Also, this survey relies on self-reported urban/rural distinctions, and those answers are wildly inaccurate, to say the least.)
We can also tell by the existence of zoning laws. If the demand for larger lots were really that high, the market would develop like that on its own without needing minimum lot size laws to force it.
These could be factors but I do think this is probably accurate overall. Walkable areas are expensive primarily because they’re in such short supply. It doesn’t take a majority to make it expensive, just a slice of the population larger than the people who can actually fit in such places. And since we’ve made dense urban development illegal in like 99% of the country, naturally any amount of people wanting to live in such places is too much.
Ultimately I think this is a problem created by large, majoritarian government. The suburban majority decides urban design and the rest have little to no power to object.
I think tying “big” to “car-based” and “small” to “walkable” is probably skewing the results a bit. I doubt most people would choose “small” regardless of what follows it.
I would choose small, but then I’m weird. A big house just means that you’ve gotta fill it with excess shit, and clean it all the time.