Conservatives Prefer Sprawl; Liberals, Walkability

[finehoe]

Pew asked whether respondents would rather live in an area where "the houses are larger and farther apart, but schools, stores and restaurants are several miles away," versus one where "the houses are smaller and closer to each other, but schools, stores and restaurants are within walking distance." The country is evenly split, with 49 percent choosing the former and 48 percent the latter. But the political divide is dramatic: 75 percent of "consistently conservative" respondents prefer the suburban sprawl model, and only 22 percent prefer the walkable urban design. Among "consistently liberal" Americans, the numbers are reversed.

http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

[KenFSU]

Can't help but think that there could be some familiarity basis at play here. With our densest, most urban population centers being traditionally liberal and rural America skewing sharply red, seems reasonable that people could simply prefer what they know and are comfortable with.

[carpnter]

There is a lot of data in that article.  I have to wonder if they have any data for the age or any other factors(where they currently live) for the preferences of where people would like to live and what they see as important.  I think it would be very interesting.

I like having a yard so I can grill or fire up the smoker to cook a pork butt or some other meats, its hard to do that in an apartment type setting. 

[taylormiller]

That is a lot of research. A lot of the topics presented in the data, I'm sure, will be discussed on other threads.

But the idea of walkability vs. "more room" and the political divide of that issue just astounds me.

It seems so counterintuitive that conservatives are so opposed to what seem like conservative principles. Such as, the environment - wouldn't it stand to reason that conservatives would also be conservationists based on the principles of prudence and maintenance of assets?

But this one is an issue that I "get," but still don't fully understand. I "get" that rural areas are predominantly red while metropoli are usually blue. I "get" that the countryside appeals to the agrarian who is predominantly right on the political spectrum. That's easy to "get" as education, religion, etc all play a part in that, but for anyone who considers themself a fiscal conservative, I don't understand why the metropolis isn't more appealing. Take Jacksonville, for example, we are going to spend ourself TO DEATH if we keep expanding the grid. The cost of roads, utilities, and just maintaining this sprawl will ultimately bankrupt us. We are paving the roads out of Jacksonville for these rural-preferring conservatives to go live in Clay, St. Johns or Baker county and the cycle of self-destruction continues because their property tax goes to those respective county governments while the city of Jacksonville keeps expanding the grid at our expense. It's almost as if Duval County itself is making living outside of Duval County more appealing. Meanwhile, as we're expanding the grid and continue down this path of absurd spending, we're losing Duval county taxpayers which in turn means to the people still living in Jacksonville, your property taxes are going to go up to pay for all this expansion. Do you see how viciously idiotic that cycle is?
A fiscal conservative with half a brain would realize that the best way to fight rising property taxes is to keep as many taxpayers in Duval county as possible while also keeping municipal costs down, and the best way to keep costs down is to have a centralized infrastructure and mitigate sprawl. It just makes sense. Roads, power, sewers, you name it all costs less in a centrally-developed city because there's less of it to construct and maintain.

PLUS, as an added bonus in the name of conservation, when you have a densely populated area, you leave A LOT of land undeveloped. Look at Jacksonville and look at the miles and miles of land that is now suburbia which costs so much to build and even more to maintain. So much of the suburban sprawl and expansion is so unneccesary and so much of it could have been preservation land, which amounts to taking care of the environment without spending a dime because you're just leaving it alone.
How is that not the conservative mindset?
When you have a metropolis, cars are used less frequently, so there are fewer emmissions and more people save money by not having to pay for their respective cars and all the expenses that go with it. Seems like a traditional conservative mindset to me, keep costs down, protect resources.

I think more people in this country are fiscal conservatives then they'd admit because identifying yourself as a conservative has been somewhat stereotyped as calling yourself a gun-toting, racist Christian-zealot which is simply not true. To be fair, there are a lot of conservatives who fit that bill - but there are fiscal conservatives who have far more progressive social views. The data compiled in this research simply identifies "conservative" vs. "liberal" and while it goes over a lot of political issues, it lumps fiscal conservatives and social conservatives together which is an unfortunate misnomer. Ultimately, a fiscal conservative ought to realize that "walkability" is achieved by having a dense metropolis and a dense metropolis is ultimately a great way to keep municipal costs down, taxes lower (because more people are paying into it instead of living in other counties), and is more environmentally friendly (which even if you don't believe in global warming or climate change, you can still believe we should take better care of the planet.)

Conservatism should be based on conservation of our resources, financial and natural. Fiscal conservatism and environmental conservation should go hand in hand as each can accomplish the other, which is why I simply cannot understand how conservatives don't look at the metropolis as the best method of urban planning.

[BoldBoyOfTheSouth]

I'm not sure if this poll takes in nuances.  San Marco, Avondale
& Riverside are all walkable neighborhoods but almost all of the houses within these historic neighborhoods have back yards and garages.   

Our historic neighborhoods have the best of both urban and suburban worlds but we like to talk with our neighbors and walk or bike to restaurants but still live in older style suburbs that will be the most desirable places in the 21st century.