Suburbs are not walkable. The assertion only reveals lack of accurate conceptualization of American suburbs. Yes they have made their transport choice: they have cars. Modern cities aren't equivalent to "civilization" in this comparison.

Suburbs can be, see suburbs built pre-WWII which typically had a train line connecting them to the nearby city industrial center which was used for daily commuting of workers who walked or biked to the station.

I agree that the vast majority are not walkable but it doesn't need to be that way. I live near an extremely walkable suburb.

Storefronts at the sidewalk instead of on the other end of sprawling parking lot. Pedestrian crossings in the middle of longer stretches of road (as opposed to only at intersections). Dedicated bike paths throughout the entire town. Schools centrally located on a single campus in the middle of town.

It goes to show what a town can do when the local government decides they want to be more than just a outpost for a larger city.

It'll always be that way. The suburbs are vast. Walkability is the rare exception, not the rule. Due to distance. Some exceptional parts of some suburbs are walkable.

For example, I have in mind the immense suburbs of a second tier US city. These are impossible to redesign, and travel to do simple errands is measured in half mile increments. With expanses of residential housing and heavily trafficked roads inbetween. This is for convenient locations. Much of the housing is less conveniently located.

You're generally right but suburbs _can_ be walkable if they're not designed by idiots. Houten, in the Netherlands, comes to mind. Or a lot of the US streetcar suburbs which these days are generally not considered suburbs - South Park, San Diego to give one example.

Respectfully, "can be" needs to be paired with "rarely". I'm not debating that the rare small section of expansive suburbs is walkable. That's found everywhere, rarely.

The reason that I'm insistent on the distinction is the same reason that I suspect responders are insistent on giving the impression that walkability is generally possible in suburbia. That reason is that the crux of the debate is whether or not the automobile has to remain central to American travel.

My POV is that suburbia is unavoidably car centric, almost all of the time with rare exceptions. Those taking the opposite pov are generally trying to give the impression that walkability is generally possible.

I live in a suburb that is very walkable. It has single family homes, can walk everywhere, and am close to transit. I have been having trouble driving but I can walk or bike for most of my needs.

This is pre-war streetcar suburbs. The difference is that the houses are close together. The garages are mostly in back and tiny. The streets are in a grid, nearly all have sidewalks, and many are narrow which lowers speeds. The main streets have shops and restaurants along them.