[jppope]

This may or may not be true, and it doesn't matter because single use zoning in most American cities makes it illegal to build walkable cities. It's pretty hard to establish what Americans prefer when the alternative what they have isn't allowed.

[inglor_cz]

Why should a neighbourhood consisting of single family homes not be walkable?

This is such a neighbourhood from the early 1920s not too far from where I grew up. Take a stroll through it with Street View. It is perfectly walkable.

https://goo.gl/maps/kKqhtNbKDy6oycSi9

The lots are smallish compared to the American standard, though. This is a crowded continent.

[nottorp]

It's not a single use zone if stores are allowed in it. The OP means that you need a car to get anything you need because the nearest store is 2 hours of walking away.

[inglor_cz]

Ah, this is something I did not know. A residential area that allows no stores is really a weird, weird concept.

[nottorp]

Oh, I'm also in Eastern Europe and it's similarly foreign to me. Even the new suburbs they're building here now with all identical houses, Edward Scissorhands style, have corner stores(tm) within walking distance everywhere.

[oblio]

Small stores draw criminals, you see?

[inglor_cz]

So does big business :)

[tptacek]

Single family zoning isn't simply a car thing. I live in a small, walkable, transit-friendly neighborhood full of crunch eco-liberals, and it is entirely hostile to upzoning for reasons having nothing at all to do with cars; it's a central tool of NIMBYism.

[couchand]

Oh my yes: whatever height is currently built is perfect, every currently vacant lot is a prize, etc. etc.

But the GP spoke of single-use zoning, a slightly different cudgel. I understand the abstract appeal of dividing up a map into neatly-separated areas, a la SimCity, but that just doesn't accomodate real life.