[kmeisthax]

Two out of the three things you mention are so 'undesirable' that the few dense walkable urban areas in the US are more expensive than living in the suburbs. There's a reason why left-wingers use the word "gentrification" a whole lot. In many cases suburban home and car ownership is actually cheaper than the traditional urban lifestyle, for various reasons including but not limited to:

1. Supply being limited because America outlawed dense urban construction decades ago. Dense cities cannot legally expand to meet demand and building up gets more expensive and unrealistic after a certain number of floors.

2. People in suburbs being further away from lucrative jobs - i.e. proximity to one's work is priced into the cost of the home.

3. Various government subsidies and tax credits that distort the market to produce more resource-intensive suburban housing.

[vel0city]

"America" didn't outlaw the expansion, the cities did it to themselves. The cities are in charge of their zoning and planning, not the federal government. They could allow for more density, but the voters choose no. Just look at all the nimbys fighting apartment complexes; are they all goons from faceless corporations and the federal government or are they just the local people currently living there expressing their choice?

It's not like the government subsidies and tax credits exist even though nobody wants them. They exist because, once again, that's what voters have suggested they want when they go to the polls.

I do agree, cities should be able to expand their density. I think in an ideal world people should be able to choose to live in generally affordable forms of whatever housing they want. And that's the thing, I'd like to be able to choose the housing style I think is good for my family. Many here would argue I shouldn't be able to make that choice, or that some choices (like single family homes) should be made so expensive most people can't afford it.