Wait. Are the pedestrian friendly cities battlegrounds with panhandlers with horrible schools, or are they wildly expensive luxury destinations that are in such high demand that only the 0.1% can live there?
Wait. Are the pedestrian friendly cities battlegrounds with panhandlers with horrible schools, or are they wildly expensive luxury destinations that are in such high demand that only the 0.1% can live there?
I'd think "it can be both" would be obvious, but clearly not.
Rich people have been enjoying a different standard of life even in the midst of abject poverty since forever, but I guess this is news to some.
So, OP is right. Despite the Nextdoor-tier rant about panhandlers the demand for walkable cities is huge. So huge that the super rich will pay handsomely and put up with panhandlers on top of it to live outside of car hell.
At least one wealthy family in NYC I met doesn't use surface transport for much... they use helicopters or have things/people/shopping/restaurants brought to them.
Had an experience where a store sent tailors, stylists, a manager, and a ton of inventory so that they could clothes shop while still in their home. Apparently, this was "normal". My shock was a source of great amusement to them.
They did the same thing with restaurants, movies, concerts, even a play... the staff, etc. came to them.
I have no idea just how wealthy they were (Brazilian who owned many businesses in oil and gas production) but I had never seen (or even heard of) such service.
I don’t think your wealthy acquaintances are representative.
I’ve lived in NYC my entire life, and I know plenty of wealthy people. Most take the subway; a small but not insignificant minority drive or are driven everywhere.
You mean the skies aren’t filled with everyone riding helicopters?
The skies are so filled with copters that you can walk from building to building on their blades.
I think we're talking about the difference between millionaires and billionaires (they are definitely billionaires).
This sounds more like and impoverished life than a wealthy one.
(Clearly I am referring to the life experience, rather than how much money they have and how they spend it.)
That's an amazingly reductive take on a complex issue, and it infers something which was not implied.
At no point did I suggest that walkable cities were not in demand, only that the current state is less than ideal for a large number of people, to which your solution was "be rich".
No my point is that if OP were wrong then these places would be cheap.
I don't understand why you're phrasing that like it's a dichotomy. It's clearly both.
It's almost like the US has a... missing middle?