I would argue the core issue is actually overpopulation (or in the case of California too many people wanting to live there but also trying to balance preservation of Nature). And it's certainly much more acute in California. Tokyo is not a desirable way to live, but neither are the suburbs. Too many people means the density gets too high, and poor zoning regulation and poor building incentives get us mcmansions. Every little European city that you've ever been to that was lovely, walkable, and sensible, is the objectively best way for humans to live. You know it and I know it. Loosening building restrictions won't really work if you think that you're going to build single-family homes. It would be a disaster. You have to build entirely new neighborhoods where people can't use cars at all, but I've never seen any level of government in the US allow that. Otherwise you will just end up building suburbs and then the state will build 15 lane highways ad nauseam. Traffic will continue to get worse, it'll be a dystopia.

And you build more and more housing, you'll wind up with 4-lane highways to and through Yosemite or something - that's not at all desirable is it? How would you handle the traffic and flow of people? Giant hotels, McDonalds, and huge traffic stops? It's just not sustainable.

California's problem is that it's not sustainable for the amount of people that want to live there. I think it's a global problem in general too. Less people, and no cars would be most desirable to me.

Sorry for a bit of a discoherent rant.

Counterpoint: Paris is denser than Tokyo (by almost a factor of 3! 21k persons/km for Paris vs 7k persons/km for Tokyo, only a little higher than NYC). While I’ve never heard Tokyo referred to as “undesirable” (though I have heard “crowded”) in the first place, to say Paris is “undesirable” is to objectively fly in the face of mass media and popular perception of society’s regard for the “city of love”

Density does not automatically mean low quality of life, and in fact could just as easily enhance it: what matters is good city planning and design, and I’d very much argue that in e.g. LA (where I live) the vast majority of single family homes in the city are in areas where it makes no sense for them to be, lowering the quality of life for even those that own and live in the home (e.g. single family homes right next to highways and commercial corridors? why?)

In my opinion, the idea that California is “full” is immensely dangerous. Especially considering the fact that SF and LA are losing net population yearly — and yet the rents are still increasing and our suburbs are still sprawling further and further out. Density is the solution, not sprawl and not limiting who can come here.

Tokyo is a fantastic city, I spent two weeks there and loved it. It is extremely clean and safe, loads of good restaurants and entertainment, and good outdoor spaces. If I could speak the language and work there, I would move in a second.

California is in no danger of being overpopulated... The issue is as you say - single family homes are a brain dead way to live. Every homeowner has to spend hours a day maintaining his house... We stopped running our own internet servers after the first ten years of the web. Why can't we do the same with housing? Convert everything to medium (4 story buildings) or high (10+ story) density housing. You would completely get rid of suburban sprawl and everyone rich and poor could live within a mile of the ocean or mountains, walk or ride a five minute train to work, and solve climate change at the same time.

I don’t think high rises are ideal either. Amsterdam or somewhere like that is more ideal to me.

Your on the right track but there's a ton of regulation we need to get rid of before we can truely increase the supply with new innovations in housing production.