"Sprawl allows the middle class to continue to exist? There are plenty of places that don't have nearly the level of sprawl that we have in the US; does the middle class not exist there? (Japan, for example.)"

I can't really speak to the existence of the middle class but I'll just leave this here: "An astonishing fact: 92 percent of Japanese [like many countries including the US] consider themselves middle-class, according to a labor ministry report published in 2019. That seems to clash with another fact: that nearly 40 percent of Japan’s work force is employed on a part-time or temporary basis, earning less and more vulnerable to layoffs than regular company employees."

Anyway, this is interesting: https://resources.realestate.co.jp/rent/what-is-the-average-... A 1K/1DK (1 bedroom) apartment in the Central Six wards of Tokyo averages 106,000Y per month. The other 17 wards average 72,000Y. A 1K/1DK apartment in Saitama (https://resources.realestate.co.jp/rent/what-is-the-average-...) is 49,000Y. That's ~30-45 min by car or 40 min to 1hr by train (according to Google); i.e. kinda sprawly.

I can't find a median wage for Japan, but the average seems to be about 300,000Y per month, meaning that apartment in the Central Six is out of reach, the other wards would be doable, and outside Tokyo proper would be very doable.

But the reason Japan doesn't have this kind of sprawl is that buildings are depreciating assets in Japan with an expected lifespan between 20 and 40 years, which both creates regular opportunities to build higher occupancy buildings and eliminates the paralyzing financial incentives for restricting housing supply [0].

In the US, real estate is the dominant store of wealth for a plurality of Americans, which is why we see such fierce opposition to development. Dense accumulations of people affords great economic opportunities which attract more people, but people need somewhere to live, and if the supply of housing is held far below the demand, prices rise and push out people who can't afford said prices. So people who can't afford sufficient housing within commuting range of economic opportunities within their abilities can either A) forgo the benefits of metropolitan living, B) search the fringes of the metropolitan area for places they can afford/are allowed to build, or C) become homeless.

It would be great if we could just nationally eradicate the regulations, ordinances, zoning codes, etc that cities and towns use to prevent development, but I don't think the 10th amendment allows for that kind of law. And without more housing, there will be sprawl.

[0] https://www.rethinktokyo.com/2018/06/06/depreciate-limited-l...

If you want to see no zoning in action go to Houston, TX. You can build anything anywhere. You will find a stately mansion next door to a gas station and a titty bar. The result has been the rise of MasterPlan communities and developments. See SugarLand, TX. Imagine your homeowners association with the power to regulate and control businesses in it's area as well.

That's not true. It's correct that Houston's building restrictions aren't referred to as "zoning", but Houston absolutely has regulations and ordinances that produce the same effect [0][1].

[0] https://youtu.be/TaU1UH_3B5k [1] https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/DevelopRegs/

Thanks for the correction. I had heard the story from friends who moved there years ago.

No worries, I had heard the same after a chemical plant in Houston exploded and devastated some nearby residential property. It wasn't until some of the urban planning youtube channels I watch (including the one I linked) focused on Houston that I learned the details behind the "Houston has no zoning regulations" factoid.