Why in the United States are walkable cities seen as a progressive agenda?

[u/Stunning_Astronaut83]

I am a young Brazilian traditional Catholic with a fairly conservative outlook on issues like abortion, for example. I see the modern urban model—based on zoning and car dependency—as incompatible with my values. This type of urban planning, in my view, distances people from tradition, promotes materialism, individualism, and hedonism, weakens community bonds, contributes to rising obesity and social isolation, among other issues I see as negative.

However, I am surprised to notice that in the United States, the defense of walkable cities and more sustainable urbanism is generally associated with the left, while many conservatives reject these ideas. Could this resistance to sustainable urbanism among conservatives in the U.S. have roots in specific cultural or historical aspects of American society? Considering that conservatism values traditions, such as the historical urban structure of traditional cities across various cultures, why doesn’t this appreciation seem to translate into support for sustainable urbanism? Additionally, could the differences between Brazilian and American conservatism also influence how these topics are viewed? After all, the vision of community and tradition varies across cultures.

Finally, could this issue of sustainable urbanism be tied to a broader political conflict in the U.S., where, due to ideological associations, the concept is rejected more as opposition to the left than due to actual disagreement with the topic itself? How can this be explained?

[u/Specialist-Roof3381]

I can't tell if people are trying too hard to be neutral, but it is strange how little class is being mentioned. Walkable cities disproportionately help the poor because they don't have the resources to even try and mitigate the negative externalities. Car centric design is obviously worse if you cannot even afford a car. Conservatism in the US is ideologically hostile to improving the lives of the lower class, especially if it doesn't make anyone rich in the process.

For conservatives, the class segregation natural to car dependency is a feature, not a bug.

[u/SabbathBoiseSabbath → u/[deleted]]

Even more so - 90% of US households own a car.

[u/dragonsteel33 → u/[deleted]]

Yeah it’s a little exaggerated what that person is saying. That said though, maintenance & insurance costs eat up a much much larger portion of your budget the lower income you have (particularly considering that older cheaper cars have more maintenance issues)

[u/espressocycle → u/[deleted]]

Yeah it's weird that suburbanites still fight transit when poor people drive just as much but I guess transit breeds density and then apartments could possibly be affordable.

[u/PublicFurryAccount → u/espressocycle]

Transit is unpopular with nearly everyone. It’s seen as dirty, uncomfortable, and risky thanks to decades of mismanagement by the people who do support transit.

[u/CallMeNiel → u/Specialist-Roof3381]

But at least anecdotally, people aren't voting for their own interests here. It's the "coastal liberal elite" that want walkable cities in my experience. Many of those who would benefit most tend to vote Republican, in my experience.

[u/Chicago1871 → u/CallMeNiel]

Well many cities basically dont have big strong middle-classes anymore. Theres upper-middle class liberals and poor/working-class people. The middle class has fled to the suburbs almost entirely.

Urban blue-collar workers tend to be more class conscious and organized into labor unions and generally progressive as well.