This chart from the Pew Research Center has had a lot of play – and no wonder:
.
.
At the extremes, the differences are extraordinarily clear – and explain a good part of the culture wars when it comes to issues related to urban form and transportation. Could it also inform the current debate about transportation between Victoria and Vancouver?
1. Who pays for infrastructure (tolled, congestion-charged, local property tax or income/gas/carbon-tax-cross-subsidised)?
2. Why would all houses in a community be the same size?
3. Why would all houses in a community be the same distance from stores?
The survey question is flawed.
1. I get what you are saying, but I don’t think that was the point of the survey. I think the survey question is asking respondents to say which kind of lifestyle they prefer. And when thinking about it, most people think about the circumstances in their own city or town.
2. There are many, many suburban subdivisions around this continent where the houses are all made out of ticky-tacky and they all look just the same.
3. “Several miles” does not mean they’re all at the same distance, it just means they’re all far and not in walking distance.
“..are all made out of ticky-tacky and they all look just the same.”
Sounds like the condos of Downtown South to me. Or those of the emerging Cambie Corrdior.
When the differences are that dramatic and statistically valid, there can be little doubt that the survey captured something significant. We have a significant result, the question is, what is it? If there is a flaw it must be in the interpretation. Then there must be an alternative explanation for the result. Your comment does not seem to suggest one. Do you have a hunch of what else might explain the variation?
Whether or not the community descriptions are realistic is unimportant: what matters is how survey participants are interpreting them. They are responding to an imagined ideal, not some actual place. For that purpose, unrealistic stereotypes can actually be preferable. If the question had been, “Would you prefer to live in a fairy castle or a hobit hole,” would you call it flawed because there are no such things?
As Price implies, this result is consistent with political priorities for the two groups. It is also consistent with the dramatic red-blue maps of American voting patterns. If you have an alternative explanation I’d love to hear it. After little thought there is one that springs to my mind: race.
Whatever flaws may exist with the survey, a quick look at Canada confirms the results.
Airdrie Alberta is essentially a series of cul-de-sacs surrounded by open prairie about 25km north of downtown Calgary. There are schools embedded in the community while shops and services are concentrated into malls surrounded by parking lots.
Housing is mostly large, single family houses with big garages out front and grassy yards out back. The similarity from street to street means that there can’t be much income disparity and my brief observation was of a community that’s very “white”. I don’t think it would be too much of a stretch to say that the people look, act and think the same way as their neighbours. The election results (58% Wild Rose, 33% Conservative, 9% everybody else) tend to confirm that.
Conservatives see Airdrie as an ideal place to live and I can see why. It’s quiet and peaceful and there’s comfort in knowing that all your neighbours are just like you.
Compare that to Vancouver or Toronto. Even within a small neighbourhood you’ll hear a dozen different languages spoken, see owners of new houses driving BMWs and renters of old basements on foot. You’ll see old and young and everything in between, 4th generation Canadians and people who arrived last week. You’ll even witness strange contradictions like the Christian woman denouncing gay marriage who gets her hair done by an openly gay stylist. To live in a place where everyone is not like you takes an open mind and accepting attitude.
There are exceptions, but the big picture is one of conservatives in sprawling communities and liberals packed tightly together in cities.
“and liberals packed tightly together in cities.” .. you mean Greens, NDPers, Liberals and Conservatives tightly packed together in cities ?
Interesting, the results are more clear than I would have expected. I wonder how much of this result is due to political ideology shaping community preferences? And how much does the type of community a person lives in (or grew up in) shape their political ideology?
What shapes a person’s political ideology: where you grow up, what your parents view is, what school you attended, influential teachers or professors that you heard, books you read, movies you watched, newspapers you read, TV you watch, radio you hear, friends you hang out with, spouse you marry, people at work that you listen to .. not clear to me if any one of those influencers are more or less relevant .. views also change over time as you make money, pay taxes, marry, have children, see people around you die etc.
If you are 20 and not a socialist you have no heart; if you are 40 and still a socialist you have no brain.