Some do. I lived in upper Queen Anne in Seattle. Very few highrise houses and all very expensive now. I would be a liar if I said I didn't miss how walkable it was.
I also lived in Buckhead area of Atlanta. Also very walkable for me, though there were a few high rises.
I lived in the Junction in West Seattle for 7 years. Highly walkable, lots of highrises in the core, but still lots of (very expensive!) single family homes. Now I live on Alki and it is much less walkable. I can get around but have to climb Admiral to get to a grocery store. Several of our bus routes were permanently closed.
Queen Anne benefits from being in Seattle and the economic benefits that has to businesses that make a neighborhood walkable. It’s also just very old and was built when walkability was a necessity. Unfortunately it is prohibitively expensive because higher density development is difficult or impossible.
I think we are talking past each other. When you said “The supply in walkable areas will, by near definition, be lower than places you have to drive to.“ I interpreted that to mean there is less total supply. You seem to be speaking to available supply.
> What places are we talking about that are a) highly walkable, b) expensive, and c) not at capacity?
I don’t think there is such a place. If a place is walkable it is going to be at or near capacity which makes it expensive.
The lack of these areas seems to be a result of an unwillingness to increase density.
I was meaning it in terms of purchasable supply. Nothing is stopping anyone from building a new city center in the middle of Montana, such that it has plenty of buildable supply.
That is, you can say that dense cities are more effecient, but that only matters if you can build another one. Otherwise, there are more affordable homes further from existing city center then there are in them. And that is going to be hard to change.
You seem to be pointing that existing cities should double down on their density. I'm claiming if that was such a clear path to success, it would be done in new places.
> Nothing is stopping anyone from building a new city center in the middle of Montana, such that it has plenty of buildable supply.
I don’t think it is that easy. The state has to approve a new town. I don’t think you can just create one at will. Nearby landowners are certainly going to have opinions.
> You seem to be pointing that existing cities should double down on their density.
Ideally, yes. But really I am saying they can’t because zoning laws prevent it. Existing home owners favor this constraint because it keeps prices up.
I think it is easier than you'd think to get a builder to build a neighborhood. Convincing mixed zoning to move in is more difficult. Largely due to how confusing store ownership is. Often the buildings need to exist and be owned before businesses look to lease in places.
None of which is to say I disagree with zoning being problematic. I fully agree with that points. I just think it is oversold. Folks like having room, and folks are typically over afraid of letting kids play in parks on their own. (I can't really argue against some of that fear... :( )
I have sensed an emerging "story" in various media over the last 6-12 months that within the US at least, there are vanishingly few cities or large towns that are (a) highly desirable places to live (b) affordable to median income folks. Or maybe the story is that if this is not true to today, it seems that it will be in 5-10 years.
I don't think this is necessarily a new story, all told. I think I remember it back in the 90s.
That said, does seem to be getting more pronounced. Really, just seems that there aren't any new cities. All of the places folks wanted to live, are the same places folks want to live today. :(
I also lived in Buckhead area of Atlanta. Also very walkable for me, though there were a few high rises.