[piva00]

I see you never lived anywhere with decent public transportation. Better public transportation infrastructure + increased density + parking is expensive + increased traffic = reduction in car usage over time.

It's America's problem of its own making, you need to find a solution, just shoving more lanes for cars, more suburbs with single detached homes, is not solving absolutely anything. No, not every rural small town will have Dutch-levels of access to trains but you can definitely improve the situation on the densely populated areas of the East and West coast, just have to get rid of this obnoxious and gauche car-addiction.

The longer you take to transition out of car-dependence, the more painful it will be.

Good luck on solving it, doesn't seem like American society put much value in it, you seem to like to suffer in traffic.

[ShadowBanThis01]

I have lived in a city with what in the USA passes for "decent" public transportation: Chicago. And I used it. But a "city" like L.A. will never have sufficient trains, because it's a giant county masquerading as a city. It's unlikely that a citizen works close enough to home to do anything except drive there.

That's why the endless proselytizing about "Let's be Amsterdam!" is soooo tiresome. We're not fucking Amsterdam and never will be. I love Amsterdam, but it's just not applicable.

Also the vilification of houses is obnoxious and dumb. The USA is not "full." Some people actually want to DO things, like garden or have a workshop or a swing set or a kiln. That means they want a HOUSE, and guess what? It's a hell of a lot better than covering up every square foot of ground with concrete for high-density apartment blocks, preventing water from percolating into aquifers and intensifying the permanent drought that reigns over much of the west.

Not to mention the "heat islands" that endless densification creates, and the trees destroyed for it.

The endless bellyaching by fake liberals about "zoning" serves as a smokescreen for corruption: a handout to developers and a license to destroy already-residential areas, while giant dead malls with boarded up Macy's stores and vast concrete parking lots sit growing weeds. THOSE have already imposed costs on the environment and are already "high-density," so until every one of those is redeveloped (along with every defunct commercial or manufacturing zone) we should never be targeting neighborhoods with actual HOUSES.

Zoning is USEFUL. It allows people to choose the kind of neighborhood they want to live in. People who want density and walkability have downtown. People who want a house can choose neighborhoods zoned for houses. And some neighborhoods blend the two pretty effectively. But pretending that zoning is always a racist, elitist conspiracy is infantile at best and more often an excuse to destroy neighborhoods for someone else's profit.

[piva00]

SFH are unsustainable, they don't generate enough tax income to maintain the infrastructure they require, they are subsidised by the denser parts of a settlement. Why should society subsidise the lifestyle of a richer caste who can afford SFH close to cities?

> Also the vilification of houses is obnoxious and dumb. The USA is not "full." Some people actually want to DO things, like garden or have a workshop or a swing set or a kiln. That means they want a HOUSE, and guess what? It's a hell of a lot better than covering up every square foot of ground with concrete for high-density apartment blocks, preventing water from percolating into aquifers and intensifying the permanent drought that reigns over much of the west.

It's not about being "full", it's about creating an urban environment that can enable humans to live without a car. The Netherlands has many suburbs with mixed SFH, some duplex buildings, rowhouses and so on. It creates denser packs of urbanisation that allow even small towns/settlements to share a downtown feeling with shops and local commerce while still providing housing for people who prefer to live in a SFH.

The issue with American suburbia is very similar to a monoculture plantation: instead of creating suburbs with a variety of different houses to accommodate differing levels of needs and incomes, which can sustain some kind of a local life (with local bars, restaurants, grocery stores) the US has zoned out most of that to only allow detached houses, creating pockets devoid of life except for individuals in their houses (like a monoculture, devoid of an ecosystem).

You don't need to get rid of SFH, you just need more mixed usage of the land, keep the SFH suburbs around a small center with denser housing which can support local shops on their ground level, like you said the US is not full, there's space to do it this way, it's just a matter of policy, not a law of Nature.

[seanmcdirmid]

The cities where SFH neighborhoods are becoming more dense and the cities with abandoned shopping malls aren’t the same cities.

[ShadowBanThis01]

No citation. No evidence. No thought process. No credibility.

Where do you think dead malls are, exactly? I live in an SFH neighborhood that's threatened by developer giveaways, and there is a boarded-up Macy's and defunct Fry's growing weeds within two miles. And, to the west, there are stretches of decrepit small-commercial/industrial tracts awaiting rejuvenation. But NOPE! Let's let developers replace one house with 10 FUCKING UNITS, with no permits or review.

So... you're wrong.