>>1392828There's literally no way changes in urban planning to encourage denser developments could ever obliterate suburban housing for people who desire it. The only logical proposals for denser development are less restrictive zoning laws and fewer subsidies for car-centric infrastructure, and encouraging new developments to build more densely. Even most of the plans for urban development here abhor shitty highways carving up cities, soulless glass brick skyscrapers that all look the same, and the absence of larger parks within walking distances. Literally no one thinks past US urban development was great, and more often than not a/n/ons complain about how past development was a mistake that lead to massive flight to the suburbs.
Demand for suburban living is so ingrained in Americans that they mostly expect to be able to continue it. Only people who make a conscious choice really deviate to moving into urban areas. The idea that anons musing about encouraging more urban development represents any serious threat to suburban living is laughable. There's no any current change in urban planning could completely deter new suburban development, let alone substantially hamper it. No one can even force Americans to live in denser urban areas if they don't want to because most American elites prefer suburban living and they also want to preserve it. How did you come to the conclusion that allowing more people to live in urban areas also means that you would have to live in an urban area?
