>>Why not? So many other people do; it makes me wonder what it is they >>dislike so much about these communities. Is it political?
What many of the people I have talked to tell me they want is a house in a neighborhood where they (or their kids) can walk or ride a bike to at least some of the following: school, parks, coffee shop, bar, a restaurant or two, church, video store, some retail, bakery, etc. It is not just that they like to walk, but that they would like to live where there is a dynamic community that they can be a part of. Does that make them Communists? I don't think so. One of my most conservative, pro-market economist friends endures a long commute to an office in the suburbs because he doesn't want to leave his mixed-use, urban neighborhood (he and his family can walk to all the places I mentioned above and the local YMCA). My sister lives in a newer development where her kids have to be driven everywhere. Even though the elementary school is only a few blocks away, her kids cannot walk because the only access to the school is from a very busy street. It seems to have been built to prevent anyone from walking there. Through my casual empirics, I have discovered a contradiction I wouldn't have expected. Everywhere I have lived (Chicago area, Raleigh-Durham area, Dallas area) I have found that houses in walkable, mixed use neighborhoods are significantly more expensive than similarly sized houses in suburban enclaves, despite smaller lot sizes and higher, at least perceived, crime rates. I have some thoughts about why new development is looking the way it is, but I am not satisfied with any of them. >>> Stephen Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 07/30/04 12:04PM >>> On Jul 30, 2004, at 12:54 PM, Jeffrey Rous wrote: > At the same time, none of my friends would ever want to live in one of > these enclaves. > Why not? So many other people do; it makes me wonder what it is they dislike so much about these communities. Is it political?
