It may be self-evident to PT readers, but this comes from a preference survey done by the National Association of Realtors in the States:
The ideal home today is located closer to the workplace and mass transportation and in a neighborhood that’s denser and mixed use, with amenities and businesses–parks, pharmacies, grocery stores, doctors offices, schools, restaurants–that can be walked to.
So writes Richard Florida here.
I couldn’t get the link to work. For others with the same problem, the original article is here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/04/the-new-american-dream-denser-smaller-closer-but-still-private/237284/
The apparent consumer preference for smaller, better located but detached housing is interesting. Clearly apartments are not for everyone. Small lot housing can achieve similar densities to low and medium rise apartments, and may cater to a wider section of the market than apartments. However my experience is that zoning codes don’t usually allow small lot, low rise housing, instead promoting apartment construction on larger sites. In my area (Sydney, Australia) the minimum lot size in residential areas is usually 500m2. However many older urban neighbourhoods built before the car have detached, semi-detached or attached houses on 100-250m2. What would be the outcome if planners dramatically reduced minimum lot sizes in well located residential areas?