> 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
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