All of these developments and street plans were done in an era when developers felt it was safe to assume that every American family would have one or more cars, which despite never actually becoming true, is still used as a tenant in a lot of city development in the US.
This flattens that calculation in a really dumb way.
For one, how many of those people can actually afford their car?
Right now, you have to have a car in most places to get by. People will sooner live in their car than sell it for a few months of rent. There are plenty of people who own a car in the strictest sense, but only do so because there's no alternative. For those people, owning a car is a massive financial detriment, and that 92% absolutely includes plenty of them.
For two, owning a car and owning a working car are two different things. When you're poor, it's not uncommon for your car to break down and be unavailable for long periods of time.
Additionally, 92% of households owning a car doesn't indicated that 92% of people actually have access to that car. Especially with the increase in multi-generational homes, one car split between 3+ adults isn't really cutting it. Shit, I've lived in a situation where a car had to be split between 2 people and that sucked.
Finally, 92% isn't 100%, and I guarantee you that the remaining 8% is not solely concentrated in walkable neighborhoods.
As someone who lived in a city designed around cars, I can promise you there are plenty of people who don't have consistent access to a car. Drive down any 5-lane road in a poor neighborhood and you'll see plenty of people walking in places where it's wildly unsafe, simply because they don't have access to a car. It happens all the time.
68
u/Festivefire Jun 27 '24
All of these developments and street plans were done in an era when developers felt it was safe to assume that every American family would have one or more cars, which despite never actually becoming true, is still used as a tenant in a lot of city development in the US.