Thank you for speaking up. You're responding to a comment that angrily assumes some unspoken characteristics about "cities built for humans, and not for cars."

I am a reluctant, but accomplished touring cyclist, and I've ridden hundreds of miles through American landscape that is positively hostile to pedestrians and vehicles operating at less-than-car scales. The assumption of cars has led urban designers to implement travel distances that are only grueling to traverse, and the interstitial spaces are inhospitable, bedecked with exhaust ports, bad lighting, narrow spaces or vast, entirely unfurnished without shade, let alone water or public facilities for miles, even, in larger towns. Sometimes, just crossing the street to go a kilometer I've found the American cityscape impassable without hopping in the car, and popping over a minimum of one (1) freeway exit.

That's just one aspect of the alien dimensions to which our environment's built.

I visited a University in America having lived outside America for 5 years. I walked from the University to the theater 2km away to see a movie. It felt like I was going to die even with a sidewalk next to the high way.

Similar story. The old Apple Maps icon was where the N De Anza Boulevard crossed over the Junipero Serra Freeway. Center of the old icon [0] was One Infinite Loop, top left of the icon was the Cupertino Hotel.

Going from the Cupertino Hotel to One Infinite Loop on foot felt like I was risking life and limb, despite it having pedestrian lights [1].

[0] http://thetrendler.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Maps-Icons...

[1] https://goo.gl/maps/ZMBq8RzpZLc6xwM97

Visiting Plano, Texas (which I really enjoyed) - our hotel was just over the road from the business we were visiting.

That road was a 3-lanes-each-way road with no pedestrian crossing points. We just had to run across when there was a gap. It wasn't a fast road - there were plenty of traffic lights for traffic purposes - but still, nothing for pedestrians.

230 m^2 isn’t uncommon in the US, and there’s plenty that are double. We do have “basements” that sometimes are finished and can be counted against the size, but are generally used to much larger homes than elsewhere.

This is why nothing is walking distance

Specifically in 2019 the average single family home was 2611 sq ft, apartments 1156 sq ft, acc’d to

https://themreport.com/daily-dose/09-02-2020/as-more-stay-ho...

I question their numbers. How many bedrooms are in that 1156-square-foot apartment? At least three? I've lived in several two-bedroom apartments throughout my life in areas with a relatively low cost of living, and they ranged from about 650 to about 900 square feet in area. The latter felt unnecessarily spacious.

So either the source claims that the average apartment has three or more bedrooms (and this is false, very few 3BR+ apartments are built in most buildings), or that the average apartment offers palatial luxury. Maybe they miscalculated?

I respectfully request to cease comments of the type of "weeps in x". You don't have to honor this request, but I would feel better without reading these.

The brevity is pretty unique but lets see what would be conveyed by honoring that wish

Translation: "As someone that lives in desirable parts of high cost of living areas, even the largest premium units are below the average square footage mentioned in that article, I generally try not to think about it but it is fascinating to see, I think I can relate to other people that earn enough to comfortably live in these areas, but it is not common to ever talk about being financially stable in an expensive area, lets go back to pretending that we are all struggling and 'got a good deal' on our 900 sq ft penthouse."

That's an absurd size for a home.

"230 square meters" is about the size of the average new home being built in the US.

Yes.