Misunderstanding supply and demand

A few months ago, a new urbanist professor / blogger I read from time to time noted a statistic from a survey conducted by the National Association of Home Builders. The question was something like “do you want to live some place that you can walk around?” and the response was an overwhelming yes. Our professor reacted with glee, noting (something like) “see, see they really do want traditional neighborhoods!”

If only he were right. First of all, let’s remember that the National Association of Home Builders is an organization so lowbrow that it makes the average NASCAR fan look like a member of the Metropolitan Opera. Then look at the question: “some place you can walk around.” No reference to transit. No reference to walking (a la yours truly) to the office. In fact, no reference to destination at all. This is the problem. There was likely a confusion between walking-as-lifestyle and walking-as-rare-recreation that makes the whole thing tragically comical. Add to the question the spin that the respondents really want somewhere that they could walk around – i.e. somewhere that isn’t perceived as dangerous - and suddenly the academic optimism doesn’t seem so justified. Show me a survey where people are willing to give up the sanctified single-family detached house, and then I’ll be convinced.

This kind of communication problem is probably the whole debate in a nutshell.


ADDENDUM: . . . . okay, so I was wrong. In the original post it was a Better Homes & Gardens Survey. The content, however, remains the same. (Note the term "walkable." What did they think that meant?") At least we all agree about the NAHB.