Works great if you have smaller spaces, able bodied people, and the infrastructure in place to support it.

For what it’s worth, dense infrastructure is possible everywhere, even in large spaces like the United States. It just doesn’t get built because the people tasked with making such decisions choose not to for various reasons.

The density in a specific location isn’t the issue, it’s the space BETWEEN all other locations. Too much sprawl to begin with requires extensive work of a long period of time to even be able to do something this.

Also helps that the cities this works for were built for walking a long time before cities in the US had even developed a unique urban footprint. East Coast cities established in the 1500-1700’s would be the closest in design to European cities.

Do you need to visit every single location in your city state or county? Or do you need to reach certain amenities and would happily use a closer one of similar quality?

Density matters more than size. People aren’t shopping on the other side of the country. They go to the most convenient option.

Well, you’re either unaware of, or just ignoring a lot of things that do not fit into your tidy explanation.

Every been the Bay Area in the US? You know what it takes to ride a bike from one side of SF to the other and any direction? What about crossing a bridge to Oakland? What about crossing the GGB to get to literally any other city on the other side?

Also,.most major US cities were not built for walking, only East Coast earlier cities. Let me ramble off a bunch that discount your point: Los Angeles, Atlanta, Chicago, Seattle, San Diego, Denver, Philadelphia, and even Washington DC.

Your immediate response is going to be something like “Well they WERE originally…”, but that doesn’t matter. Maybe 100+ years ago, but that’s not where we live. We live in the reality of now, and that reality is that none of the cities are AS accessible by walking or bike as they are with cars. If not Topography, then the general logistics of where jobs vs living spaces are located.

People don’t have the luxury of choosing where they get to live in the US anymore in proximity and convenience of their commute to work. Just not the reality of things. No argument you might have will beat the consumer logic of finding the most ideal place to live first, and worrying about the commute second. Likely to be by car.

Most of Seattle is readily walkable, I’d often go on basically hikes through the city taking 6+ hours. There’s definitely a few places that are difficult to get from one area to the next but individual neighborhoods and most the connecting areas are solid for pedestrians and bikes. Denver though holy fuck I’ve never been somewhere less walkable it’s a disaster there

You literally just said “walkable”, and then referred to it as “hikes”. Hiking is not walking 🤣

It’s the difference between somebody with mobility issues walking two blocks, or eight. Neither Seattle or SF even attempt to pretend they are walkable because of the topography.

I don’t think that’s the gotcha you think it is? What do you call a 6+ hour walk, a casual stroll? You have to bring water and food when you’re out for that long doesn’t matter where you go which is why I called it a hike. I can walk for 6+ hours in Seattle and be in walkable neighborhoods the entire time with proper sidewalks, shops, parks, and near transit to head back if I don’t feel like continuing to walk

The least walkable topography is near downtown where you have the one line, streetcars, and busses. There are several transit options to get in, out, and around the downtown hills; hell the monorail is still running if you are feeling fancy. Outside of downtown you have the one line that’s being expanded every day with busses leading out from it’s stops. I won’t say Seattle has it perfect or is the best but it is undeniably one of the better US cities for walking and they’re actively working to improve it in several ways