That's what I was thinking of. If you turn off all regulation you'll end with 20 story apartment buildings with zero parking space, zero greenery and accessible only by a tiny narrow road that's always clogged.
If everyone lived in 20 story apartment buildings there's be massive amounts of space no longer used for low density housing that could be freed up for parks etc.
My road alone takes up around 40,000m^2 to house and transport about the same as housed in 2,2000m^2 near the local train station.
I’m currently vacationing in super hot Tokyo, and yes, those buildings do create shade when packed around narrow roads. I get that in the USA where buildings are spaced so far apart from each other that this wouldn’t be very effective.
Concrete buildings you mean, and even then, new ones are insulated well enough to not trap heat like pavement does (otherwise they couldn’t be cooled on the inside very effectively).
Why do you think people will build houses with no street space? Anyways it’s not like street space will suddenly be turned over from the govt to private builders, but even if it was private land why wouldn’t they build land with enough space in it?
Zero parking space would be a good thing because it would indicate public transport is good enough that people don’t need their own private cars for most trips. But in practice if that’s not the case a builder is gonna be unable to sell an apartment without parking space, so they aren’t gonna build apartments like those.
And what’s wrong with 20 storey apartment buildings? And why does that preclude greenery?
Why would a private developer's decision not to include parking, be interpreted as some kind of metric for the sufficiency of public transport in the area?
If a builder chose not to install locks on the doors of a new apartment complex, would that be "a good thing because it would indicate public safety is good enough that people don't need their own private locks for most areas?"
There is no incentive for them to consider these externalities at all. There is, however, an incentive to use that same space for something they can profit from - namely, additional apartments.
at least people would get to live close to where they need to and not commute for hours a day and they might actually be able to afford to live in places. Fundamentally this always seemed like a problem where some people pretty much park their head in the sand and go "well i don't care about others, as long as my space is protected".
My road alone takes up around 40,000m^2 to house and transport about the same as housed in 2,2000m^2 near the local train station.