> They don't have to have the density of Manhattan or SF to be better for walkability than they are now.
Right, but it was said that the people don't want walkability at all. I mean, that's how we got here: Wondering why someone wants neither the walkability of the city nor the wide open spaces of the countryside, but instead the crampedness of the city and having to drive everywhere.
I mean, hey, If that's what is up someone's ally, cool. Whatever floats your boat. But the complaining about the the cost of transportation becomes at odds to that. At some point there needs to be a recognition of "you can't have it both ways", no?
> At some point there needs to be a recognition of "you can't have it both ways", no?
Yes, at some point that true.
My point is that there is space for transit systems and mixed use zoning to make life easier in suburbs if they incrementally densify, but not to the point of being cramped.
To put a number on it, a population density somewhere around 5000/sqmi (vs the average suburban density right now of 2000/sqmi).
Right, but it was said that the people don't want walkability at all. I mean, that's how we got here: Wondering why someone wants neither the walkability of the city nor the wide open spaces of the countryside, but instead the crampedness of the city and having to drive everywhere.
I mean, hey, If that's what is up someone's ally, cool. Whatever floats your boat. But the complaining about the the cost of transportation becomes at odds to that. At some point there needs to be a recognition of "you can't have it both ways", no?