The Neighborhoods Americans Want

The latest survey on neighborhood preferences was released this week by the National Association of Realtors and Smart Growth America. The press release had the headline, "Homebuyers Favor Shorter Commutes, Walkable Neighborhoods." Of course the pro-sprawl contingent can not let this inflammatory statement stand without a rebuttal. Sure enough, a counter-editorial titled "Let's Pretend" was penned by Joel Schwartz, visiting scholar at the AEI.

[I say "pro-sprawl" because, while these folks profess to support a level playing field, somehow it's always Smart Growth and new urbanism that inspires their animus. The subsidies, regulations, and institutional practices that overwhelmingly tilt the playing field in favor of sprawl are ignored or dismissed as nearly irrelevant. The net effect is pro-sprawl.]

It's notable that Schwartz fixates on one question in the survey, and ignores the other 15-plus questions that demonstrate very intriguing and deep support for walkable, mixed-use communities.

For instance, in terms of preferences for NU, survey respondents said the following were "very" or "somewhat" important in deciding where to live:

Sidewalks and places to take walks 72%
Living in a community with people at all stages of life 65%
Being within walking distance to stores and restaurants 51%
Living in a community with a mix of people from various racial and ethnic backgrounds 47%
Being within walking distance to schools 46% Being within walking distance of public transportation 46%
Living in a community with a mix of people from various income levels 45%
Church, synagogue or religious place of worship within walking distance 40%
Living in a community with a mix of different types of housing 38%

These percentages are much higher than the 33 percent that's usually cited as the market segment that wants NU -- more than twice as much in some cases.

The one question that Schwartz rants about could be phrased in a more balanced way, it is true. (It compares a lively urban neighborhood with a large-lot suburban neighborhood and asks which you prefer.) Even acknowledging the bias in that one question, however, the responses (and the associated demographics) are informative food for thought.

Schwartz says it's "misleading" to provide hypothetical choices that aren't commonplace. That argument makes no logical sense. So what if 13 percent of households are on half-acre lots or larger? How does that make peoples' preferences less valid? And even if 15 percent of workers' commutes are 45 minutes or more, that represents a daily experience for millions of people. It's no fantasy, I assure you.

Schwartz claims the Smart Growth community can't exist as it is described in the question he dislikes. But there are hundreds (if not thousands) of neighborhoods that fit the criteria listed in the question, including dozens of mature NU communities. He repeats the familiar canard -- that Smart Growth is about activists "imposing their vision" on the rest of us -- but it's the suburban, auto-based lifestyle that is imposed right now on a sizeable segment of the market. Just look at new residential construction. How much is walkable, diverse, and mixed use? Less than 10 percent, if that much, and compare that to the percentages in the NAR survey.