[Turing_Machine]

I would say more density would be mandatory.

That can't happen without massive (and forcible) population relocation.

For example, the UK has a smaller land area than Oregon, but has ~64 million people, compared to ~4 million for Oregon. France is smaller than Texas, but has 66 million people compared to ~26 million for Texas.

The idea of "just getting rid of cars" will never happen for a similar reason. The U.S. is too big and there are way too many people who live outside the range of any reasonable public transit system that's been devised so far.

Maybe it will happen someday, but I don't think so.

[saraid216]

Vishaan Chakrabarti actually specifically defines a city as "30 dwelling units per acre" or "population dense enough to support train-based transit". Latter is paraphrased.

[Turing_Machine]

Hmm... I'm not sure I'm comfortable with a definition of city that excludes (e.g.) Los Angeles and Dallas-Fort Worth.

Reading what I wrote above in the light of day makes it sound like I'm advocating forcible population redistribution. I'm not... just pointing out that a European-style urban environment probably can't happen in the low densities typical of the United States, and that the only way to achieve such densities here would probably require force (which would be a bad thing, IMO).

[saraid216]

I haven't finished reading his book, so I can't speak to the context in which he says this.

I guess it depends on what you consider force. If you stop encouraging suburb development, would that be force? It would certainly promote such redistribution, but I wouldn't consider that force. As another HN link noticed, this kind of financial incentive to move into the city has already started happening, but it has been a bottom-up bit.

[Turing_Machine]

IMO, removing subsidies wouldn't be force, but raising taxes would.