This is misleading to most people. The US census counts the suburbs as urban. I don't believe most people referring to urban areas are referring to people in the suburbs.

"To qualify as an urban area, the territory identified according to criteria must encompass at least 2,500 people, at least 1,500 of which reside outside institutional group quarters."

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/about/faq/...

As I tell people, together with my two neighbors I live in the middle of about 100 acres on a road with no sidewalks. This counts as urban as far as the census is concerned.

The US is big. That the above is urban makes sense in the context that I'm only about a 15 minute drive from a small city and am only about an hour drive from a large city. There are lots of places in the US that are 100+ miles from the nearest Walmart.

First, not everything is about race. Some people may move to the suburbs to get away from minorities, but not everyone does.

Second, you want to force us to live the way you think we should? Feel free to get lost.

"urban" is a very imprecise word.

You're likely quoting the census, who defines any town with more than 2,500 people as urban.

I promise you, if you went to a town of 2,500 people, you would not have the word "urban" in your head.

EDIT: After a little reflection, this really blows my mind. Over 60 million Americans live in towns of less than 2,500 people. This country is massive.

Dense urban areas are harmed by cars, but where do you draw the line? Suppose I can drive through the suburbs of Philadelphia, but not the city center. What happens to the area around the restricted-driving zone? Does it become an crowded parking lot as people trade their cars for transit?

I'm not suggesting that there are no solution here -- I'm genuinely asking what the solutions are.

Part of the solution might be using the local population density to inform how much of the street you devote to cars. For example, in rural areas, two lane blacktop with no shoulder and 100% devoted to cars is ok, because there aren't many cars, so people can still use the road even if they aren't driving. In the suburbs, car travel lanes should begin to narrow, sidewalks should appear, bike lanes should appear, etc. In the densest part of the city, the streets should give space to transit, delivery/infrastructure vehicles, low speed transport like bikes, scooters, etc. and people. Primarily people and transit

Ideally there would be expensive parking lots right at the edge of the area, and cheaper parking lots further out. So you could park and walk right at the boundary, or park near the Broad Street Line and take that in. Or you could park at a Regional Rail stop even further out and take the train all the way in. Or you could Uber right to the boundary. Depending on where exactly you live and how much you value time vs. money, different options will make sense for different people. But considering that the people who will be getting dropped off right at the boundary would have otherwise been driving to the city center, it doesn't make traffic any worse.

The car-free zone makes sense if it's smaller than the area that has public transit. Note that even in the complete absence of public transit, you can still comfortably implement about a quarter-mile radius of car-free area, since a quarter mile walk is only 5 minutes.

In the US what we're mostly talking about is closing individual downtown streets to through traffic (like, say, Market between 5th to 13th, ignoring the City Hall death circle). On NYC 14th street, any car is allowed, as long as it turns off within 2 blocks. This greatly limits the usefulness of the street to through traffic, (and therefore makes it a much better pedestrian and bus environment) without changing the parking situation at all.

I live in an urban area of about 2M people. It takes me 40 minutes to get to work on a good day, driving on an interstate. The closest mass transportation option would require me to drive about 25 minutes to get there. Most people are like me.

Claiming that I live in an urban area does not suddenly make my commute walk-able or produce new public transportation options. I live in an urban area and still need transportation. My city does not allow mixed use buildings, which would go a long way toward reducing the need for transportation.

Many of those live near and around a city, rather than in it, and commute daily.

That's one of the things that need to be solved, rather than celebrated. Commuting -- no matter which transport you're using, is a waste of time and energy.

I agree, but I also don't want to live like a sardine in a can, packed in with millions of others, living in a small box, having no green space, etc. I'm generally a social person, but don't like living that close to that many people. Many others seem to agree.

There are livable and afforable alternative to Manhattan style density and there are plenty of working examples. We just refuse to build that way.

Look at many continental European cities.

A mid-sized German city will be full of low to mid density buildings and walk up apartments, few skyscrapers. Mixed use of retail and residential, and very good transit by American standards, connecting to intercity rail transit. Highways frequently terminating or routing outside the city. Plenty of greenspace.

Leipzig, Germany https://www.google.com/maps/place/Leipzig,+Germany/@51.33310...

Even the US used to have this, though they are long drowned in sprawl. Any city that was of decent size pre-WWII usually has street car suburbs - a dense mix of single family homes, shops and apartments usually built around a transit node that connected to the core and region. Look at Shaker/Cleveland Heights and Lakewood in Cleveland. There is a healthy mix of uses and density centered around transit. You can see the pattern they developed around, even if it's vestigial at this point.

That's not low-density. Maybe not everywhere is as bad as Manhattan, but that is indeed very dense. Note that you twice described your ideal solution as dense:

"a dense mix of single family homes, shops and apartments"

"a healthy mix of uses and density centered around transit."

Not a big fan of that kind of density, nor are many others. I'd at least like to have my own backyard, and not have my neighbors peering in from a second story.

I think you have a very different definition of low density than everyone else.

Low density means there is at least a full building worth of space between houses and ideally several buildings worth.

It means you can stand on every side of your house and look and have difficulty seeing your neighbor.