>This is the key to Tokyo and other very large metropolis cities.

But they also live in small apartments and homes. I'm not convinced that Tokyo is a good example here.

The key to this problem is to have jobs in places that aren't large urban centers. This way the population spreads out and housing becomes more affordable.

I don't completely agree with your assumption that living in Tokyo means you need to live in a shoebox (and especially not in Osaka which is about 2/3rds the price of Tokyo), but actually I think there's a case for cheap, somewhat-cramped housing with good transit access to the city, for those who want it.

In Japan, a middle class family can own a somewhat cramped (say 900 sqft?) 3bedroom house/apartment walking distance to a world class rail system and generally walking distance to schools and some stores too.

In America's top cities, a middle class family can't afford to own a 3 bedroom apartment with rail access generally, so they move outside the city to the suburbs where they often have to drive to work - which means they need to buy a car, buy gas, etc

But if you don't want the lawn and the picket fence, why is this the only option available? We've taken a one-size-fits-all approach with covering the vast majority of the country with big suburban houses, and the free market is proving people want options, evidenced by wildly inflating prices of urban properties.

...also loans (in the USA) are determined on the size of the house as collateral. You are incentivized to buy a large house and small land. I would rather buy large land and a small house so that I can grow more food, trees, other natural resources. Our family has no need for a large house and they are inefficient to cool and heat.

> ...also loans (in the USA) are determined on the size of the house as collateral.

What are you talking about? The collateral is the full property, not just the structure.

Please don't spread out. Leave the forests and grasslands alone and don't just keep adding subdivisions just so people can have manicured lawns.

Its fair to say that the jobs could move to other city centers, but the solution isn't suburbia.

What would it take for America to have 20 New Yorks, instead of 50 Atlantas [1]

[1]: https://www.citylab.com/life/2014/04/ranking-most-sprawling-...

That creates gridlock, because even if people start by working close to their home, they'll change jobs and start commuting farther, and you can't have a dense network of public transport over a huge area, so people start using cars and clogging up everything.

Don't think so. There are good reasons why the existing centers are drawing more and more people and business. Moving to the outside is often detrimental.

A better way may be to create new urban centers or develop lesser ones.

This is also how Tokyo does it. There's no main, well-defined downtown where people go to work. Spreading the commutes across the whole transport network is a tremendous optimization.

> have jobs in places that aren't large urban centers

That creates a very different lower-density city. Think about a sprawl like LA rather than a squeeze like Manhattan. Public transport won't work but parking spaces might actually exist. Your Afghan Bagel place will be 1 hour drive rather than 15 minute by subway on the way to work etc. More space, but less selection and diversity in terms of food, entertainment and other venues.

Perhaps we can have jobs in smaller mid-size cities instead of only in big heavily populated (5+ million) metro areas.

s/Tokyo/Singapore/

If the government wants you to use public transport instead of private cars they have to provide great service 24/7

I guess almost any fix, including better transportation, will mean people/people's jobs will just concentrate faster, outpacing any deceleration of rent increases.

This is a very interesting idea, but I’m not convinced it’s true. Why do you think that might be the outcome?

Because people are urbanizing despite the price hikes. Which means they prefer higher rents to staying where they are or moving. Probably because of other factors like commuting, other common distances being shorter, friends and family.

So if higher prices are indeed a problem, holding people back from urbanizing, you'd think they'd urbanize faster if the pressures against it decrease.

It's certainly fair to think that there's some backlog of people who would move in if prices reach some price threshold, which could be considered resistance against the price falling lower than that threshold.

But in the case that you dont build units, you're still going to get some of that urbanization by those who can afford it (or are willing to struggle to survive in the city), and this will drive up prices even further.

The more you invest in public transportation, the higher the rents will be.