[moberemk]

My first thought looking at that first "new suburb" photo was: where's the sidewalk? And the second photo has sidewalks but no visible amenities.

Sure they're denser, and townhouses are at least less materials-intensive to build, but I'm curious how this is otherwise an improvement on the old planning model of swathes of detached homes?

[maxsilver]

> I'm curious how this is otherwise an improvement on the old planning model of swathes of detached homes?

It's not. (Or at least, I'm not arguing it's better). My only point is that "more density" isn't the magic bullet fix people sometimes think it is -- because the US is doing a lot more density than we historically have in the past 60-ish years, and it's not meaningfully different in terms of lifestyle or planning.

If you want good alternative public transit, you have to just decide to build it first, and you kind-of have to do it almost everywhere nearby. (not just Division St, not just Woodward Ave, not just Hiawatha Ave, etc).

"Crank up density" doesn't magically result in a "car-free" city. You can't townhouse your way into having the Chicago Elevated, you have to actually decide to build the L. (similar to, say, Seattle SoundTransit)

[Ostrogoth]

This is what is happening in the US city I reside in. Developers are gobbling up land and putting in “high density” housing, but without building any additional amenities or restructuring roads that make the area more enjoyable to live in. And this is in a city with very libertine zoning rules, so mixed use is not restricted. The price/foot is about the same for the higher density housing as it is for a house and a yard just a 10-20 min drive further out, so given the choice between high density/no amenities/no parking/not walkable/surrounded by high speed roads vs a house with a yard and a garage (will have to drive in either scenario)…I’ll take the bigger house and the yard.