[anonymouskimmer]

My alternative are things that, unfortunately, would never fly politically:

1) Regulate urban business density in coastal cities and cities more generally limited by water.

2) More multi-core metropolises where the highest <edit: business> density is either spread out entirely, or spread to multiple districts sufficiently far away from each other.

Edit: The comment by hamandcheese showed I had forgotten this important modifier for point 2.

[dwallin]

Urban density doesn't cause the issue of traffic. The issue of traffic is caused by cars. Urban density allows public transportation, the only current viable alternative, to be financially sound on a large scale.

[hamandcheese]

business density - important difference from density in general.

Take San Francisco, for example. We have transit. But riding at peak hours sucks and will always suck because everyone is going to the same place.

Concentration of offices downtown makes transit to anywhere else less viable - hence the only subway in SF goes to one place.

[lwansbrough]

Urban sprawl is perhaps the most environmentally devastating behaviour that humans do.

[anonymouskimmer]

Suburban sprawl with manicured lawns is pretty bad, too. Fortunately there are cultural shifts away from that.

[lwansbrough]

Urban sprawl generally refers to the development of suburbs outside cities. That’s what I was referring to.

[anonymouskimmer]

I thought it was a more general term, and that suburbs were distinct. But it does appear that suburbs are considered a part of urban sprawl.

Regardless, manicured lawns are an environmentally bad thing on their own.

When you mentioned urban sprawl I first thought of expansion of the urban heat-island effect.

[lwansbrough]

Lawns are my least favourite part of America. They’re just so ugly.

[hamandcheese]

Add to that mixed zoning. It is crazy that in some places you live, work, shop, and eat each in distinct neighborhoods.