> low-walkability car-intensive cities strongly correlate with increased street crime

Do you have any links? that goes entirely against my intuition. SF is generally considered walkable and has high street crime. I'm pretty sure the same is true for NYC, Paris, Berlin, other highly walkable cities where as say Irvine, Brea, (E.T. like neighborhoods that require a car to do anything) have low-street crime.

Update:

The first 2 hits I found on google found higher walkability correlated with more crime

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001391652092184...

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41284-018-00161-7

It's a well known fact in traffic engineering. You can start from the links at the bottom of the page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkability#Socioeconomic

As the sibling poster wrote, by comparing the only walkable area in the downtown of a car-centered city you are [involuntarily] cherry-picking the populace that cannot afford a car. You have to compare whole countries.

Those are measuring crime within a city, not comparing cities. Though I think you're going to have a hard time separating 'walkability', and other features of old European cities.

It's also much more fun working in those areas. Going for a bite to eat at a nearby restaurant at lunchtime, catching some sun in the park.. industrial estates are horrible places to work.