31–40 of 72 posts
My instinct tells me that walkability is a consequence of the actual cause, which is probably higher property values in denser cities, meaning better schools, or something to that effect.
Paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329729827_The_Socio... So they buy/beg data for 382 "community zones" from walkscore.com, do linear regression, and find a correlation. Then they get funding to do an individual-level survey and there's no correlation. And it doesn't appear in South Korea either. Their explanation is some statistical magic to pull out a "sense of belonging" as a mediating factor and a s…
For example, post 2007/2008 one of the things that slowed the economic recovery was the fact that too many people owned homes. When you own your home you can't just pick up and move (to where the jobs are/growth is). Eventually, some people abandoned their homes. Necessary. Unfortunately, those holes left a mark behind them as well.
There is no opportunity without fluid movement.
I really like being able to walk places, I think it probably is helping me fiscally, but this is not even a survey.
Walkability goes hand-in-hand with density. Density tends to occur close-in as a consequence of land values being higher. Therefore, there is a natural association between high property values and walkability. I hope the paper takes this into account. It could just be that people with more money live in more desirable locations, which end up being more walkable too.
Edit: Downvotes? Stay classy, HN.
Cars are pretty expensive to own and operate. Mr. Money Moustache is constantly railing against them - https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/04/22/curing-your-clown.... Agree or disagree with his approach to things, his blog is very much about high social mobility.
Secondly, walking is a pretty good way to force yourself to get exercise. I'm fortunate enough to work for a big tech company with a shuttle; I recently realized that taking the shuttle forced me to walk more than 500 miles a year just between the stop and my apartment. That's huge when I'm pretty unreliable about going to the gym. The shuttle also strongly encourages me to stay on a reasonable schedule - in before the last morning shuttle, out before the last evening one. I have to imagine that over time, this is also a pretty huge health benefit.
Edit: typos
Seems spurious. Could be talented people move to cities with high earning potential—which happen to be walkable. Do the authors control for that?
It's as if a study came out that showed that, according to their exhaustive statistical analysis, people that drove Mercedes tended to be wealthier than people who drove Chevys. Then they concluded that the key to upward mobility must be to get a Mercedes.
Walkability goes hand-in-hand with density. Density tends to occur close-in as a consequence of land values being higher. Therefore, there is a natural association between high property values and walkability. I hope the paper takes this into account. It could just be that people with more money live in more desirable locations, which end up being more walkable too.
Dense cities being expensive is relatively recent in the United States. It follows decades of restrictive zoning and changes at the federal level to make housing more of an investment. Also, don’t forget that for most of history, you could only travel on foot, by horse (or similar), or by boat. “Walkability” is a retronym; for the longest time it was the only way most people got around. Edit: Downvotes? Stay classy,…
Supply is certainly part of the problem for expensive housing in some cities. But it's also driven by a significant increase in demand over a fairly short period. (And IMO it remains to be seen whether trends like remote work, autonomous vehicles, etc. end up reversing the inflow into "elite" cities.)