I think that it is because many Americans have no experience with the other as a lifestyle.

Ok that's misleading a bit. The poll asked if you'd rather live in a larger house that's further from other people but stuff like restaurants are miles away, or smaller and closer together but stuff like restaurants are within walking distance. I'm paraphrasing but only slightly here.

You're extrapolating the car based and walking based part, but these people could also want more public transportation and bike routes. Maybe these people already live in cramped apartment buildings and just dream of having a big house. There's other factors than just "me dum American me want car"

They didnt ask me or anyone I know

"best we can do is a small house in a car-based community"

Hyperindividualism and apparent institutionalized agoraphobia.

Probably due to most of them already living in car based societies that are far apart. Living like that makes me people hate their neighbors, and they want no one to encroach on their kingdoms

I have 3 kids. In the city I can afford a 2 bedroom in the suburbs I can get whatever I need. It's not that I prefer it... It's not really an option

Unsurprisingly, a large amount of people prefer the lifestyle they already have than one that is unknown to them.

Most Americans are selfish fucks.

Signed,

An American.

In many places in the us, apartments are built in such a way where they come with all the negatives, but also without many of the upsides that apartments should have.

I know several people who live in apartments, but there still isn't anywhere to walk to anyways!

Sure you might be able to, but if it requires crossing 80m of asphalt just to cross a street no one is going to do it.

If the suburbs weren't subsizided and homeowners had to pay premiums for living so far from central services it may change their opinion.

Rigged question: would you rather live in a big house or an apartment? Obviously people will choose a big house duuuh

I'd say most people move out of the city into a big house because the land value and house is much more affordable than close to the city. However the lower price is then offset by the extra travel time to and from work, costs for car, petrol and maintenance.

In the end you don't really save any money, you just spend it on either car and time or land value.

I wouldn't mind living an an apartment building nearly so much if only the building came with shared versions of the amenities a single family home might have: A yard for kids and dogs to run around in, a garden area with planters, a garage so people can work on their vehicles... If a 12 or 24 unit building just had single shared versions of these amenities it would make the apartment lifestyle a lot less restrictive to people who feel pressure to buy a house but don't want to burn their life savings. Two reasons this doesn't happen are regressive zoning codes and landlords treating shelter as an investment to squeeze value.

Some of us have big houses in walkable communities. You can have both, though you have to sacrifice on the yard / lawn (which is a good thing anyways, seeing what Americans do with theirs ; which is to say they do nothing, and on purpose too !)

If i were too fat to walk, i would too

I have the best of both worlds: small house in a car-based community. Sigh.

How about a any house in a cycling-based community?

I feel the opposite as an American I never get asked these questions though. so I always wonder who they are asking.

Well 40 % of Americans are still supporting Trump as per latest polls.

Maybe decades of lead exposure in childhood are just not ideal for the development of a reasonable population in a country.

Have you met people?

I'll do almost anything to keep my distance.

Well, it is a country famous for being stupid and selfish and celebrating both...

Why not both?

Big yard

Small town

Everything you need in the town centre

Bus going around every 30 minutes

Good enough for me.

When I started writing this post I thought

I would only write two or three

Lines

And now this format has proven

Inefficient

that's because they still aren't bearing the TRUE costs of suburban sprawl. it's still "cheaper" to live in suburban hell than in the city.

if the math started to make more sense, many more would choose walkability

Every apartment I have ever lived in has been akin to hell on earth. Loud, unruly neighbors. Unwalkable area. So far away from amenities it takes 15 minutes of driving to get anything. No shade. Bad smells.

Its no wonder. There's a few awesome neighborhoods i would love to move to, with great walkable street, groceries, books, restaurants all only a few minutes of walking away. I would love to move to those places but they are so expensive I could never dream of it.

55% is just past half, and the US is pretty sprawling. I wouldn't call my house big, or small either, but being able to walk or bus to work is something I have not compromised on since I was 20, it's more important than a big house. Which apparently puts me in a large minority.

I feel bad for the 45% of suburbanites who would prefer to be closer to everything, we have those house farms in the exurbs here. The houses are big, but not far apart. I know several people who moved down here, bought one of those houses because they looked nice, them realized how trapped they were, but right now the price of houses in my previously very affordable neighborhood in the city has risen to eye-watering levels, and that is true for most of the areas in the city.

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.)

54% of Americans read below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.

I bet there's a lot of overlap between these two groups.

I don't necessarily want a big house but I do want space for a workshop where I can build/fix furniture and such and a garden where I can sit outside and chill by myself. I don't see how I could have those things living in an apartment.

Moot point though. I doubt I'll ever be able to afford a house. Let alone a nice one.