Planning for Love, Part 2: What happens to dating in a car-centric world?

This is the second in a three-part series on the relationship between urban design and romance that explores how the way we build cities and mobility infrastructure affects modern dating. Read Part 1 here. 

Most accounts of modern dating dissatisfaction point to cultural and technological change, yet the physical environments where people live, travel and socialize receive comparatively little attention.

Research suggests there are good reasons to think urban form matters. On land use, a survey of U.S. college students found that walkable public spaces, restaurants and outdoor areas play a central role in dating and romantic outings. 

We know a lot about how urban form impacts sociability and social perception overall. For example, one experiment found that pedestrians and cyclists were perceived as friendlier, more trustworthy and more socially desirable than drivers, even when their interactions with others were otherwise identical. At the neighborhood level, areas with connected streets, shared spaces and active frontages are associated with more social interaction than layouts centered around front-facing garages and private automobile access.

To test whether the same holds for dating, I surveyed 152 adults aged 18 to 30 in Miami who were actively seeking a romantic partner. The sample was roughly split between women (51%) and men (46%), with the remainder identifying as non-binary or preferring not to say. To capture the built environment each respondent actually experiences, I matched their ZIP code to Walk Score data and their self-reported commute mode to get a clearer picture of how car-dependent their daily lives really are. 

Stated vs. revealed preference

To understand whether people were actually dating the way they wanted to be dating, respondents were asked to rank these five partner-meeting methods twice: once by preference, and once by how they actually meet people.

1. Friends and family
2. Shared activities
3. Spontaneous public interaction
4. Online dating
5. Social media

Responses were then divided into two groups based on how people primarily get around. Drivers (85 respondents who mainly travel by car) were compared against non-drivers (67 respondents who mainly walk, take public transit or use micromobility).

Everyone across both groups said they'd ideally like to meet their partner in person, organically, putting spontaneous public interactions and friends at the top of the list while dating apps and social media fell to the bottom.

In practice, however, drivers were getting far fewer spontaneous public encounters than they wanted, turning to social media for dating far more than they'd like.

For non-drivers, their actual dating life and dating ideals were much more in sync: public encounters and social media use both happened at nearly the rate they preferred. One exception was meeting through friends and family, which happened less often than they would've liked.

The survey results: Nine additional questions

• Beyond the preference gap, nine additional findings emerged across three areas:
• How often people experience romantic encounters in different settings
• How people perceive their neighborhood as a place to meet someone
• How people feel about their own dating lives

Frequency questions were answered on a scale from "never" to "frequently," while perception and attitude questions used a five-point scale from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." Responses were then grouped by Walk Score and transportation mode and compared. Here is what each question found:

How often people experience romantic encounters in different settings

1. Romantic encounters in public outdoor spaces (parks, streets, plazas)

Respondents were asked how often they experience romantic encounters outdoors in public, choosing from a scale of "never" to "frequently." Responses were then grouped by Walk Score category:

• Car-Dependent
• Somewhat Walkable
• Very Walkable
• Walker's Paradise

and compared with each other. In car-dependent neighborhoods, 35% of respondents said "never," making it the most common response. As walkability increased, the share of respondents who reported "never" using social media to meet potential partners declined, while "rarely (once or twice per year)" became the most common response in Somewhat Walkable (27%), Very Walkable (29%) and Walker's Paradise (44%) neighborhoods. Overall, the likelihood that respondents reported never experiencing romantic encounters in public outdoor spaces declined as walkability increased.

2.  Romantic encounters in public indoor spaces (cafes, gyms, libraries)

The same question was asked for indoor public spaces, with responses again ranked from "never" to "frequently" and grouped by Walk Score category. For most walkability levels, the answer was largely the same: "never" came out on top. The only real exception was Walker's Paradise, where responses were spread more evenly, with "sometimes" and "often" each making up a third of answers, pushing "never" out of the top spot. While the effect is less dramatic than outdoors, the pattern holds — the more walkable the area, the more likely people are to experience romantic encounters indoors, too.

3. Romantic encounters on dating apps

Respondents were asked how often romantic encounters happen to them on dating apps, using the same "never" to "frequently" scale — and the gap between drivers and non-drivers was notable. More than half of non-drivers said they never use dating apps for romantic interaction, compared to just 32% of drivers. This suggests that drivers have considerably higher dating app use overall.

How people perceive their neighborhood as a place to meet someone

4. Ease of accessing places to meet people

Respondents were asked whether they find it convenient to access places where they can meet potential partners, responding on a scale from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." In car-dependent neighborhoods, "neutral" was the most common response (41%). As walkability increased, "agree" became the most common response in Somewhat Walkable (32%), Very Walkable (47%) and Walker's Paradise (44%) neighborhoods. In short, people in more walkable neighborhoods found it easier to access places where they could meet potential partners.

5. Availability of community events

Using the same level of agreement scale and Walk Score groupings, respondents were asked whether there are enough community events in their area to meet new people. In car-dependent neighborhoods, "neutral" was the most common response (34%), while 27% disagreed. As walkability increased, "agree" became the most common response in Somewhat Walkable (33%) and Very Walkable (55%) neighborhoods. In Walker's Paradise, responses were evenly split between "agree," "neutral," and "strongly agree" (33% each), with no respondents selecting "disagree" or "strongly disagree." Overall, satisfaction with the availability of community events increased as walkability increased.

6. Whether neighborhood design encourages social interaction

Respondents were also asked whether the physical design of their neighborhood — things like sidewalks, lighting and seating — encourages social interaction, again rated on the same five-point agreement scale and grouped by Walk Score. Car-dependent residents were largely uncertain, with nearly a third actively disagreeing. As walkability increased, that skepticism faded: more people agreed that their neighborhood's design supported social interaction.

7.  Whether their environment pushes them toward online dating

Respondents were asked whether their environment encourages them to seek partners online, rated on the same five-point agreement scale. The divide between drivers and non-drivers was sharp. Drivers were much more likely to feel that their environment pushes them toward online dating, with 41% selecting "agree." Non-drivers were less convinced, with 40% selecting "neutral" and 18% disagreeing. 

How people feel about their own dating lives

8.  Social confidence when meeting people out in their neighborhood

Respondents were asked to rate their agreement with the statement, “I feel socially confident when meeting potential partners while I’m out in my neighborhood or surrounding area,” on a scale from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." It was found that drivers tended to feel confident, with most agreeing or strongly agreeing. Non-drivers were far less certain, clustering around "neutral" with a slight lean toward doubt. This suggests that even though drivers have fewer spontaneous romantic encounters, they actually feel more confident when those moments do come up.

9. Desire for more in-person romantic interaction

Using the same agreement scale, respondents were asked how strongly they'd like to experience more romantic interaction in person. Even though both drivers and non-drivers wanted more in-person romantic interaction, drivers felt that desire considerably more intensely. Among drivers, "strongly agree" was the single most common response across the entire survey. Non-drivers leaned in the same direction but with more measured responses and greater neutrality. This suggests that the desire for more in-person romance runs deepest among those whose environment is least likely to deliver it.

Designing for love? 

Though it might seem like these findings speak for themselves, the data opens more doors than one might think. Part 3 of this series will explore what these findings mean, including what is currently working, what needs to change, what sits in between and, most importantly, whether love is something cities need to design for deliberately or whether it is simply a byproduct of building places worth living in. Stay tuned. 

–

Hannah Kosoff is an urban planner and researcher interested in how urbanism shapes the human experience, particularly in the context of suburban sprawl. She explores these questions through filmmaking, design and research, with a focus on how the built environment influences social connection, well-being and everyday life. Read her thesis, “Planning for Love” here.