There’s demand for walkable neighborhoods


I wrote for last week’s Real Estate section about a recent National Association of Realtors poll finding that 58 percent of American would prefer to live in a neighborhood where stores are within an easy walk.

Just 40 percent prefer a neighborhood with housing only, where a car is required to get to stores.

The results raise a question: If so many Americans want businesses nearby, then why are so few neighborhoods built that way?

In the Capital Region, along with most other American metropolitan areas, home buyers who want neighborhoods within a walk of businesses will find their options limited, especially in suburbs.

Other results in the poll might help explain why that is: The survey found that 80 percent of Americans prefer to live in single-family detached houses, while 59 percent would accept a longer commute and having to drive to shops if it meant they would have a detached single-family home, rather than an apartment.

The survey also shows preferences for larger lots and privacy from neighbors — features that can be difficult to accommodate in neighborhoods within walking distance of stores.

The results suggest that some poll respondents are imagining an ideal (but likely imaginary) environment where they can walk to a store, wave to the neighbors, commute 10 minutes to work, and live in a five-bedroom house on a 2-acre lot.

My story is here, if you’re interested in reading it. And, as always, feedback appreciated!

Chris Churchill

24 Responses

  1. Jes. says:

    I have a lot of problems with this statistic. If so many people want to be able to walk, why don’t more of them do it? Albany, for example, has lots of walkable neighborhoods, but even in those areas, people still drive their cars 3-10 blocks to pick up milk or bread. First, you have to define “walkable” and define “walking distance”. It takes me 10-15 minutes to walk to Lark Street, but when I’m going out with friends, they prefer to pick me up and find parking on Lark. These same people claim to want more walkability.

    I think you’re right that people want an ideal, but even more than that, their personal definitions get in the way. People claim to want to drive less or spend less on gas, but refuse to use public transportation. People claim that they’re tired of being abused by the airline industry, but even for short distances, they refuse to take the train.

    We’re really good at claiming to want things, but until people start embracing them where they do exist, it’s mostly meaningless.

  2. local resident says:

    “In the Capital Region, along with most other American metropolitan areas, home buyers who want neighborhoods within a walk of businesses will find their options limited”. Seriously ??? Then what do Albany, Schenectady, Troy, Rensselaer, Watervliet, Cohoes, Waterford, Mechanicville, Saratoga Springs, Ballston Spa, Scotia, Amsterdam have to offer ?

    • Chris Churchill, staff writer says:

      @local resident,
      Well, you left off the “especially in suburbs” part of the sentence. I get your point, though. But you know, there are significant sections many of those cities where the neighborhoods aren’t within walking distance of stores. Some newer sections of Albany don’t even have sidewalks.

  3. lizzee says:

    Have read that article and am always a bit irked. Union Street business section is located in the city of Schenectady,not Niskayuna. Okay, we do live in the area and love that there are so many advantages to walking to schools,churches,restaurants,physicians,etc.But, as your article stated it is true that people talk about wanting these conveniences but there are three homes for sale on my street ranging from 120-164K. Homes much larger right on Union or even in the Plot are on the market for months and in some cases,a year. I don’t get it. Maybe gas prices have to get to double digits??

    • Chris Churchill, staff writer says:

      huh? I don’t get your Niskayuna/Schenectady comment… From the article: “The project, which could break ground this year, is innovative for new Capital Region construction. But Ranieri notes that its concepts are old-fashioned, similar to neighborhoods like the Upper Union Street area of Schenectady, where quiet residential streets lead to a thriving commercial strip. That sort of neighborhood “was normal for thousands of years,” Ranieri said. “Here we are now, and the normal is sprawl.”

  4. JayK says:

    “The results raise a question: If so many Americans want businesses nearby, then why are so few neighborhoods built that way?” Here is my take:

    1. There was a consensus during the late 20th century that has since changed. Walkable neighborhoods simply were not valued during that time. Energy was cheap(er) and personal transport was considered the future of transportation. Since then, factors like foreign oil, war, higher costs and the results of what we’ve built have started to convince us that building in this way was not that great an idea.

    2. Walkable neighborhoods are illegal in many places. Zoning codes explicitly prohibit the things that make neighborhoods walkable. Things like minimum parking requirements, large building setbacks, large lots, wide spaces between houses, streets engineered for automobiles and single-use zoning may be the largest factor in continuing to build in ways that make walking difficult or unsatisfying, even impossible in some cases. As we’ve seen with the recent ‘new urbanist’ projects that are trying to get off the ground in this region, just to get walkable neighborhoods built in the first places requires numerous zoning variances.

  5. ike says:

    Polls should be disregarded almost universally…the american public is too “stupid” to be consistent

  6. tryme1010 says:

    How about the Village of Scotia. You have a beautiful park, lake, and river all located withing walking distance of the town as well as a store, restaurants, post office etc. All of the retail space along the Village retail area is full. Why in gods name would anyone want to live in a Guilderland, Clifton Park where’s there’s no downtown to speak of.

  7. Albany Mom says:

    Unfortunately, my experience has been exactly that of Jes. (#1)

  8. Tom M. says:

    The topic of walkable communities often seems to focus on urban areas but auto-centric, “inner ring” suburban hamlets like Latham and Delmar would greatly benefit from being included in such discussions as well. The challenge is how to make businesses and homes in both suburban & urban communities more accessible without the use of a car.

    CDTA could /should be a logical part of the solution to improving suburban connectivity, but based on its history, I assume it won’t ever reach its potential unless changes are made to (1) the way CDTA is funded; (2) how service decisions are made and (3) how far local planning boards are allowed to go in requiring access to public bus service in residential/commercial project proposals.

    For example, in my opinion, it’s become clear that without state & local laws REQUIRING public bus service access be a condition of approving residential and commercial projects, CDTA will remain an under-funded afterthought by local government officials and developers alike…who then turn around and claim they support and encourage public transit.

    If there are formal conversations in the future about how to create more walkable communities in the Capital Region, I would question the seriousness of such discussions if they fail to address CDTA’s inadequate inner-ring suburban coverage.

  9. m says:

    WE love to walk! Who wants to live in the suburbs where you have no sidewalks, no street lights, have to carry a flash light to walk in the evening, no front porches, ete. etc? Not very conducive to a friendly neighborhood whre everybody has fences and hang out in their backyards? Give me a street with sidewalks any day of the week!

  10. crabby old Emily says:

    I live in Albany. I can (and do) walk to several stores, wave to my neighbors, both my husband and I have10- 15 minute commutes to work, and my house has 6 bedrooms.
    It unfortunately is not on 2 acres, but we do have a large fenced in yard on a double city lot.
    4 out of 5 ain’t bad!

  11. jsc says:

    Part of the problem is the historic lack of zoning, and the predominance of small builders, who build 5 to 20 houses, then move on to the next project. After WWII large scale developments were common which included the builder constructing neighborhood commercial strips, neighborhood schools, pools and sidewalks. Sociologically, we have become more isolated (and want to be) instead of one basketball hoop at Johnny’s house, there are hoops on nearly every driveway…etc..

  12. BS says:

    One thing in this country is the idea that if there is an area of commercial development near your house that it has to be tacky, ugly , and cheap looking. In Ireland where I lived each little neighborhood had a beautiful clean little shop for convience items not some prefab piece of crap with bullet proof glass at the counter. Even the gas stations were made to be pretty as well. The areas would always have a BEAUTIFUL local pub with nice atmosphere, a fire, nice wood work and although people would drink, there would be no stabbings, fights, drunken brawls etc. It was thought of as a bonus to live within walking disatnce of these places. Maybe if our zoning and our society cleaned up their acts we could do it here too. Having said that most Americans will only get their coffee and doughnut at the local dive becasue they think if the place and building is nice then they can’t afford it. This is simply not true. Stewarts Corp. could certainly make beautiful little shops in the neighborhood that weren’t just some piece of crap thrown together surrounded by an ugly parking lot, however the public in US does not seem to be concerned with these quality of life issues.

  13. rich says:

    I agree with much of what is said here, but it may also be important to note that while this survey demonstrated folks would like their neighborhoods to be more walkable, their preference for a detached, single family home on a large lot outweighs the desire for having the ability to walk to where they eat, shop, and recreate. This again demonstrates our country’s manic nature of wanting two diametrically opposing things (walkability, but not having businesses, roads, and sidewalk lighting next to our house; or, low taxes, but expensive social safety nets).

  14. Joe says:

    New Ubanism all the way. Isolated living is bland.

  15. Linda says:

    Alot of this issue relates to zoning laws. People want walkable neighborhoods, but many people also want to have a yard and not necessarily live in a city. If you are in the city you won’t get much of a yard. The issue with the burbs is that the zonong takes large areas and zones it residential. It is hard to get a commercial zone next to a residential zone and if it is already zoned residential, then it is challenging to get it zoned commercial. If you want to put up a business near a house, ultimately some resident raises an issue. People oppose the very thing they want and towns support separation of commercial and residential.

  16. Sysonby says:

    #7, I have lived in 3 different locations in Guilderland and caould walk less than 10 minutes from each and be in a commercial area with markets, dining, dry cleaning, drug stores and other services. From Heritage Village I could be at one of 3 drug stores, a supermarket, video store, gym, about 8-10 eateries plus dry cleaning a dollar store, hair salons and more inside 5 minutes on foot.
    From my apt on Carman Rd and the home I later lived in I could walk to the intersection of Carman and 20 with 3 strip malls, a CVS, Hannaford 2 or 3 pizza/sub shops. I could walk to Pizza Gram or Ruggerio’s, Chico’s (now closed) Chef’s Takeout as well as a Chinese and a Japanese place. I could walk to my doctor and my dentist as well as a nail salon and child care center.
    I now live in Albany. From my house I cannot walk to any of the above services.

    I do think that far more people could walk to certain basic services if they want to but in many cases, it’s just not practical. When my on was small, I’d put him in his little red wagon and walk to Hannaford. I could fit a couple days of groceries into the wagon with him and it made for a nice trip. For someone with 3 or 4 children a it’s not practical. If I need to get supplies for a home repair project or by 5 flats of plants for my garden I need the car.

    Aot of folks think that just because you drive out Rt 20 and don’t see alot of houses on the main road that it’s not “walkable.” It is. The issue is that alot of folks just aren’t walking!

  17. JayK says:

    Sysonby, I agree that Guilderland could be a very walkable place. The problem is that even though there are many neighborhoods just off Rt. 20 within walking distance of service on Rt. 20, it is not a very pleasant walk. There is no barrier between the traffic on the street (no row of parked cars)and the sidewalk, and then lots of parking on the other side of the sidewalk. When you combine the perceived danger of traffic, the ‘island’ effect of being between cars and cars and the lack of visual interest, people aren’t walking because it’s not an inviting walk. There is more that goes into making a walkable neighborhood than proximity, unfortunately.

  18. Sysonby says:

    The funny thing was I that I grew up near St Peter’s and didn’t really want to move to any suburb. My parents had both passed away by the time I got married and I coul have just moved in to their lovely large colonial. My hesitation about the ‘burbs was the opposite of what I see here; “Everyone sees the city as friendly and the ‘burbs as not so.” Growing up, I can only recall about 3 or 4 times when ANY neighbor set foot inside our home. My parents liked to entertain but no one in the neighborhood was ever on the guest list. I feared that living in a development meant forced friendships because you share a fenceline or your kids ride the same school bus.
    I was pleased to discover that I liked alot of my neighbors. Because the houses all have attached garages, the kids ride bikes out front and thus parents hang out in the front yards and socialize. When you go down the street to have your child head home, you are invited in for a glass of lemonade or wine. When you walk the dog you find neighbors gathering in impromptu parties enjoying a beer on a warm summer night.

  19. tryme1010 says:

    Exactly #19.

  20. BS says:

    Typical of people around here equating walking around Guilderland to walking around vibrant, aesthetically pleasing, safe, funactional neighborhood. Kinda like getting married at a Vegas drive thru versus Westminster Abbey…they are both churches!

  21. tryme1010 says:

    Laughing at BS. great point.

  22. Sysonby says:

    The point is that Guilderland is more walkable than most people assume. Sure, if you want leafy tree belts on commercial streets you won’t get it here, but you won’t get in in any of the “walkable” neighborhoods in Albany either.
    Either you are talking about being able to walk to services or you are talking about creating Mayberry out of whole cloth and I don’t see the latter happening. My Guilderland neighborhood was safe and functional and walkable even if the main road carries 45mph traffic. I’d rather my taxes no go any higher to widen the sidewalks and plant trees to shelter me from the horrors of the internal combustion engine.
    Most of the most pleasant areas of Albany are so far removed from commercial areas as to be considered “non walkable” though they are lovely areas with greenery and tree belts and slow moving traffic. My sister lives on the New Scotland side of Buckingham Lake. It’s a great area and she walks all the time but she cannot walk to shops or services, for that she needs a car.
    In G’Land, there is a proposal for a project called Glassworks Village with homes, shops and commercial development. It sonds great, for those who live there unless they comercial services are not the ones they want or need. Are you really going to change doctors because there’s a lovely charming Disney-esque “downtown” with a doctor’s office in it and you can walk there? The problem with these projects is that they are Disney-esque little pseudo downtowns but they are really just poaching services from elsewhere. 20 Mall stands with several vacancies, several professional offices are partly empty. Unless there is overall expansion and the requirement for new housing and services they will either drag businesses out of existing locations or stand empty.
    Personally, I LIKE the idea of mixed use neighborhoods. My family is all from large cities and I have spent lots of time in them. I don’t however, like planned towns that look like little theme parks. Cities and town and suburbs grow organically. Places like G’Land, with only one “main drag” tend to look like small branches off a very tall tree while Loudonville for example has several main “axis” roads. They grew that way because of the terrain and political boundaries and land availability.