Urbanization is a compromise (primarily of access vs. space/privacy). Suburbs, on the other hand, are a stubborn refusal to compromise. Everybody has to make tradeoffs about cost, space, time, etc, but suburbanites say, "no, no, no -- no tradeoffs for me. In this narrow zone we're just going to make it illegal to build the kind of housing that acknowledges the tradeoffs of urban life. In this zone it is illegal to make urban housing. In this zone tradeoffs are forbidden and you just have to be rich enough to ignore them to live here."

> no tradeoffs for me

Of course there are tradeoffs, usually in the form of a longer commute.

> In this zone it is illegal to make urban housing.

So you'd propose forcefully building your preferred style of housing everywhere, even if the local residents don't want it?

Short of declaring a dictatorship, it won't succeed to force everyone to live in the same style of building. A very large part of the population has no interest in living in a high-rise apartment.

> So you'd propose forcefully building your preferred style of housing everywhere, even if the local residents don't want it?

Forcefully? When someone builds an apartment building on their own private property and voluntarily rents the units to other free actors, then obviously nobody was forced to do anything. The neighbors, on the other hand, would like to force the property owner to do something else with their land.

It's very important that we get this part clear in our minds. Zoning is coercion, not the other way around.

You'll sometimes see headlines about a "single-family home ban" whenever a city does zoning reform. No such thing exists. When we allow more uses on a city lot, we obviously have banned nothing.

And, I care about as much what the neighbors want me to do with my private property as I care what they think about my right to free expression. It's not subject to a vote. These rights are codified in our Constitution. They are not subject to a popularity contest. Some things are fundamental. We wrote those things down in a special document and put it in a folder titled, "things you don't get to vote on."

> Short of declaring a dictatorship, it won't succeed to force everyone to live in the same style of building. A very large part of the population has no interest in living in a high-rise apartment.

It's an enormous country and those people should feel free to hit the bricks (they can move, in other words). Or, hey, this is America. If you want to control what happens on a piece of private property, then buy it.

> It's an enormous country and those people should feel free to hit the bricks (they can move, in other words). Or, hey, this is America. If you want to control what happens on a piece of private property, then buy it.

Those two sentences are contradictory.

If someone owns a plot of land with a single family home, they do get to control it by staying put living in the house they like. They don't have to "hit the bricks" just because you'd prefer to tear it down to build a highrise.

> They don't have to "hit the bricks" just because you'd prefer to tear it down to build a highrise.

Do you think I'm talking about eminent domain, or something? I am not. I can't build a highrise on their property unless they let me. They're going to have to voluntarily sell me the land before I can do anything with it. I'm not proposing anything except that they be allowed to do that, if they wish to. They don't have to do anything.

There is a loophole there. I can buy up a lot of land, and sublet parcels to tenants under strict covenants. This is me doing what I want with my private property. Fast forward a century and you have a bunch of large communes owned by trusts dictating zoning. I.e. towns and cities.

> Many people in suburbs who work in cities would not be able to afford living in that city, or, flat out refuse to because cities aren't always the best places for families.

City/property is expensive because it is desirable. The US stopped building that kind of thing post-WW2, so the supply is finite and generally not growing anymore. Zoning is such that only car-centric, low-density developments are generally allowed.

There is nothing to prevent a policy change to allow "city" building like used to happen pre-WW2:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0

> Suburbs are a compromise.

No, they are bad design that devours land like a locust which causes unnecessarily high energy use and has made climate change worse:

* https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/environment...

There is no good reason for car-centric suburbs, especially when the residents do not pay the externalities of their life style.

As I said elsewhere in the thread, larger apartments plus adequate soundproofing would go a long way to making urban living realistic for families.