Fuck Cars
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
view the rest of the comments
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.