Housing is very much what I mean. The car-centric approach to life that the US takes dictates a very particular type of city construction and infrastructure to facilitate it. Single family homes require more land, low density housing costs quite a bit more to supply with power/water/sewage/roads. Even apartments in the US frequently feature parking and the streets for you to take your car and commute to work and back. As I said, it's quite apparent comparing the US to dozens of other countries, the amount of space dedicated to cars, huge parking garages.

Every apartment I've lived in outside the US I've been closer to at least one grocery from my front door than a parking space I'd be likely to find in a US suburban shopping center would be. A two minute walk down a cobblestone street usually. When I was in the US I tried to stay in as "walkable" places as I could and (other than in NYC* ) I still needed to hop in a car and drive 5 minutes down usually a 6 (!) lane street, wait at no less than two traffic lights at large intersections. We are talking about around $15-20 million of infrastructure involved in my trip to the grocery, plus wear and tear on my car, gas, a parking garage at my apartment compared to some trivial amount to maintain a pedestrian walkway. You don't notice it when you live in the US because it's just part of the background.

Not only are there the direct costs of the infrastructure, but the wasted space reduces available land and drives up prices significantly.

* NYC is a special case, Manhattan is essentially the only walkable place in the country (and even there it falls short of global standards), the geography and history impose unique constraints, and the city draws a lot of people for reasons that aren't generally relevant when we're talking about the housing situation globally.

> Manhattan is essentially the only walkable place in the country

This is nowhere near true. Tons of suburbs are perfectly walkable to all kinds of stores and service you could want. I've lived in 6 places in the US and only one of them was not within convenient walking distance of plenty of stores, entertainment and services (and that one was because I chose a fairly rural area at the time).

Yes you can find unwalkable places in the US but you can also find plenty of walkable places if you look for that.

How long have you lived outside the US/Canada/Australia? I’d suggest that your definition of “walkable” is skewed by global standards. I don’t mean sometimes you can leave your car at home, I mean that you have no need for a car and even most people who can afford to choose not to own one and prefer to walk, bike, or take public transportation instead.

The New York subway system is the only mass transit system in the US which could stand up to international comparison with a straight face, and NYC is still quite car focused. Sure there are some bike lanes, a few temporary street closures and 14th is closed to private cars now during the day, but still there is no large dedicated pedestrian area in New York of the kind you find in nearly all European cities.

> I’d suggest that your definition of “walkable” is skewed by global standards.

I'd say that's trending into No true Scotsman territory. If it isn't exactly like some elsewhere, it's not true walkability?

To me the definition is very simple: a home is walkable when I can get to my daily & weekly needs by walking. Enough supermarkets, restaurants, assorted shopping, entertainment, bars and plenty of services are all within walking distance.

> even most people who can afford to choose not to own one

I think this is throwing off your walkability definition. A home can be extremely walkable even when the residents own a car. Owning a car in the US is cheap and easy so even if I walk to 95+% of my needs (which I can), it's still nice to own cars for the edge cases. That