Urban Density Debate

Low density compared to NYC or London or another huge city. Not a low density compared to US sprawling cities.

Why isn't the city allowed to be denser?

The solution looks good. But the remaining problem is density. The higher the density the easier is to provide services for the population. New York, Tokyo, Paris, etc, have several store tall buildings with people living in apartments. For what I see these new cities are more similar to Los Angeles or Mexico City than anything else. Single-family homes spread all over the place without access to trains or subways.I have lived all my life in apartments. So, for me, it feels normal and it is v

What about NYC or any other densly populated area?

European cities prove that density doesn't work? What?

Density is a bad metric because it will always be low in the US due to how cities are built.

It is the most-dense city save for NYC, which is ten times larger. Which is my point: people think of it as dense but in reality most of it is suburban in character. There’s no need for skyscrapers to change this. A handful of 5-story buildings on major intersections would do the job.

There's a simple solution... build dense cities. San Francisco feels like country side if you've lived in an actual dense city.

Density is preferred, ie clearing parking lots downtown, not open spaces in the country.

Depends on grandparent's definition of dense and city. You need density but you don't need tokyo, you don't need high rise and you certainly don't need lab grown meat or vertical farms.You can pack a lot of people into a 3km^2 circle at fairly moderate density when you're not wasting 500m^2 (8 parking spaces @ 40m^2 then roads, misc infrastructure and setbacks) per person forcing them to own cars.A well connected walkable rural town full of 3 story fourplexes and 2