By necessity, perhaps. But really, cars enabled communities to more cost-effectively express preferences that would have been too expensive without them; cars are an indirect driver of this problem.
I think you could replace 'cars' here with a lot of technological innovations that have made certain aspects of our lifestyles attainable at a potentially greater externalised cost. Much of it is simply making things more convenient - not necessarily better.
There are two things that I am becoming more and more willing to believe:
1. We live in an age of entitlement (I can afford it, it is possible, it is legal, I want it, therefore I will do it). There is a good chance that this is how we will be remembered.
2. Convenience is killing us and robbing us of the activities that actually provide satisfaction. We fall for this because we think we desire happiness and that hedonism will provide it, when in reality satisfaction/contentment is what we truly desire.
While I agree with the general anti-car sentiment, we have expensive housing in less car-dependent areas as well (case in point: various cities in Europe), leading to a broad range of social issues. Hence, I have to disagree with this point in particular.
Tokyo of today. During the Japanese asset bubble that wasn't the case.
Also properties in Japan generally depreciate like cars because it's a seismic area and newer buildings are typically better equipped to deal with that, so it makes sense to tear it all down every 30 years or so.
Are you suggesting that railway megaprojects are being done to service communities with no people? I have a hard time finding dense communities with good rail systems.
