There's also many things that don't work out economically for towns below a certain size. This is why little towns of 1k-10k tend to have only megacorp chain shops and restaurants — despite the cost of operations being so much cheaper than they are in more urban areas, things like little family owned bakeries, delis, etc are mostly found in cities in the US.

The latter of those paragraphs could perhaps be changed, but it'd take an earth-shattering level of infrastructural redevelopment that I don't see happening any time soon.

Hard disagree here. Decentralization might reduce housing costs, but makes many other things more expensive. More roads to pave and maintain. Higher delivery costs. More time in the car to get to work, shopping, entertainment.

What we need is more/smarter infill development. And the elimination of R1 zoning (single-family only). Let the market decide what housing density should exist on a given block (within reason).

I think when people talk about decentralization they usually mean people moving from the big cities to existing less big cities. Those less big cities are usually built on the road and/or rail networks that are used to supply the big cities.

Decentralizing to such exiting smaller cities wouldn't necessarily be costly, especially if not done too fast.

Our cities are built unlike any other city in the world. We live in vast swaths of suburban sprawl that is so decentralized you get cities like LA where it takes over an hour to get anywhere within the city.

The problem is opposite. We aren't dense enough. No plot of land should be single family.

Sb-9 and adus are designed to help relieve this problem, but ultimately residential areas should all be apartment units 10 stories high when there's a population mismatch with housing and people. Singapore, Shenzhen, Tokyo, Shanghai and any other city evolves their urban infrastructure with a change in population. The western US chooses not to do shit.

LA traffic is way way better than Beijing traffic. They aren't even comparable, really.

Having lived in LA before (Westwood actually), I know that is false. While Shanghai is pretty dense, Beijing is much less so, although the notion of a city in China includes rural areas as well. Both are denser than LA, but I’m not sure Americans are ready to live in 30 story concrete boxes.

Yes, China has lots of people, but the infrastructure to support their density still isn’t that great. It has improved, driving still sucks but subway is a real option now vs in 2007.

If you lived in westwood that means you likely went to UCLA and the neighborhood there is uniquely apartments because its for students. The majority of LA with the exception of downtown and westwood is majority suburban sprawl with apartments sprinkled in little pockets everywhere.

Most of california is like this because it developed after car culture. If you go to the east coast which began developing before the automobile you will see that the cities their are much more dense and much better suited for public transportation.

We looked at lots of places around LA before renting in Westwood, lots of apartments. The apartment came with a parking spot, we owned a car.

Now, ya, there were lots of SFHs, just that not everyone or even nearly everyone was living in an SFH.

Not "everyone" lives in a parcel of suburban land. Of course not, home ownership even in suburbia (LA or not) is not affordable by everyone. So LA like every other suburbia out there in existence has many pockets of areas zoned as multi family apartments.

When I say "everyone" I mean the general way of life for someone who's not transient/starting out and living in popular areas. Obviously there aren't suburbs with zero apartments. LA is still overall suburban cul de sacs. You stay there long enough you will be able to afford a home, just not in Westwood.

Westwood is one of the most expensive areas in LA. There are plenty of areas that are cheaper and much much more affordable. You likely only looked for things west of UCLA due to proximity to your job or desirability of the neighborhoods. That area is extremely expensive and just a small (although popular) part of LA. Go south and go east (skipping past Beverley hills) and you'll see places where things get cheaper and youll get a better view a larger section of LA.

I come from a large area east of DT LA which encompasses even larger swaths of suburban sfh that rivals the size of the neighborhoods close to the coast. Starting out people live in apartments. Over time they graduate into buying a sfh and paying a mortgage. Owning and living in a sfh is the typical life path of someone living in LA or suburbia.

China has a huge population. So it's more reasonable for them to emit more gas given population size.

If we want to be pedantic, the tiny middle eastern oil rich cities are the biggest emitters per capita but their impact is small given the small population. Australia also beats the US but they are also much smaller then the US.

In terms of any reasonable impact measurement the world stands to gain the most if the US cuts down usage. Hence why I chose the US as the number one emitter. We stand to benefit if China cuts down too but they are at roughly half our emissions per capita meaning such cuts will be viciously closer to the bone if you know what I mean.

I understand the spiritual idea of trying to measure per capita, but I think for something as severe as climate change, the only relevant metric is the absolute one.

Following your line of logic, Antarctica emits the least greenhouse gases of any country or continent. Per Capita doesn't matter so whatever Antarctica does, they're doing it right.. nothing to do with the fact that the country is practically empty.

It's not spiritual at all. The realistic measure is per Capita. If you aren't measuring it this way... and I say this to be factual and with no intention to offend .. but if a person isn't measuring it this way when they have awareness of the per Capita factor then that person is concretely (not spiritually) stupid.

You are not definitely not stupid. For something as severe as climate change the per Capita measurement matters absolutely.