> The problem with living in these desirable, walkable, neighborhoods is that once they're built up enough, activists lobby to destroy what was built to fill it with high density housing because of the critical mass of services available to the area.

You're absolutely right. I live in one of these neighborhoods (actually literally was built as a streetcar suburb) and we have historic district protections so we're safe.

However, the impetus to build the 'high-density' housing is because we stopped building neighborhoods like mine with a corner store, bakeries, grocery store and restaurants within walking distance.

IMO, new developments of tract homes should mandate that within the housing tract, the developer makes a business district with space for local businesses.

It's simply the fact that we have a massive business shortage in this country that people feel the need to build high-density housing near the paltry number of business districts we have.

Or, I mean, we could not, and everyone else can just subsidize my housing appreciation. Personally, I'd like to spread the joy of my life, but housing activists seem hell-bent on driving my home price up, so whatever.

That business district would probably sit mostly empty if the density of customers isn't there. At best you'd get a strip mall with big box stores every 5km like typical American suburbs.

If you want a thriving business district with a mixture of local business you need to have density.

> If you want a thriving business district with a mixture of local business you need to have density.

I simply disagree. You can have single family homes and a thriving business district. Not ginormous mcmansions. But modest, good-sized single family homes. I disagree with your assessment because I've seen how great things can be in my own neighborhood. I'm not even suggesting no high-density housing. On the actual 'satellite downtown' core a few blocks from my house, there are a few big apartment buildings. This is fine... apartment buildings are perfect for younger people and couples.

The stores go empty because people who already have the sunk cost of a car will just drive to the next city for bigger stores at cheaper prices.

The apartment buildings are what add density. People who live in single family homes will invariably take the extra 15 to 20 minutes to drive to Costco and save money.

Two things:

(1) I know this shocks most people used to cookie cutter American suburbs and cities, but you can put an apartment building in a small satellite business district surrounded by single family homes.

(2) Sure. We drive to costco as well. We also shop our local downtown. For example, every Sunday, the local bakery sells off their wares (very nice breads, pies, and cakes) for pennies on the dollar. We also often end up at our local grocery store for sundry items we've run out of or forgotten. Why is preventing people from ever going to costco any concern? I would never suggest to never drive... that's just silly moral policing. I just suggest walking most places because it's way nicer and less stressful.

Here's an example. I bike to my gym every morning. It takes 10 minutes. It'd actually take longer to drive given the stop lights. However, if I lived in the burb I was born in, I'd have to drive, because the nearest gym would be miles away. Or, I'd have to purchase my own gym equipment. Instead, in my city, I have a 24 hour gym within biking distance, and I only need to take neighborhood streets to get there. It's lovely.

There are many services people need regularly that aren't bulk grocery shopping and we don't need to drive to, things like gyms, haircuts, restaurants, specialty hardware, small groceries, etc.

As someone who lives in this sort of neighborhood, I see every day that this isn’t true.

Why would you spend 30-40 extra minutes in a car when you could be walking down tree-lined streets to your neighborhood bakery?

Everyone is subsidizing your housing appreciation when you don’t allow more housing to be built. The activists who are driving up the price of your property are the activists trying to stop upward growth. It’s pure supply and demand.

> Everyone is subsidizing your housing appreciation when you don’t allow more housing to be built. The activists who are driving up the price of your property are the activists trying to stop upward growth. It’s pure supply and demand.

I advocate for building and development. I'm just pointing out that the activists that are supposedly rallying for 'high-density' just end up increasing my home price because (1) the high-density builders want the land and (2) people want to live in neighborhoods like mine. Heads I win, tails you lose.

Building N units of dense housing also ends up simultaneously increasing the number of people allowed to live in a walkable neighborhood by N.

I don’t think the activists have any impact on demand.

The narrow streets with trees is essential. When I used to live in San Diego, the street next to my house, 1 lane in each direction plus parking, was at least 40 ft wide. It was treacherous to cross and obviously people flew down it.

Now I live in a temperate east coast city with tree canopies across the street, which in front of my house is only 19 ft wide. I know because it's narrow enough that I was able to use a normal tape measure. 19 ft accommodates parking on one side, with just barely enough space to squeeze two cars passing each other (though in reality they take turns, as at a narrow bridge.) Still plenty of room for ambulances and fire trucks, and ample space for the police to drive recklessly fast.

yah, it’s surprising to know that most cars are only 6ft wide, and bigger trucks typically 7ft wide. my street is ~40 ft wide, and reckless/distracted drivers threaten pedestrian safety all the time (running stop signs, staring at phones, etc.). needless to say i’ve yelled at my share of them. i’d love to replace the parking lanes with protected/grade-separated bike lanes and put in a tree-filled median. not only would that make the drivers more mindful, but it would make the neighborhood more pleasant and walkable/bikeable.

As a rule of thumb, you need 10k people / square km (25k people / square mile) to sustain local services and to enable most people live without using a car daily. If 50% of land area is used for streets, parks, and commercial purposes, that 2-3k lot should house at least five people. I believe the average single-family home in an area with no housing shortage houses ~2 people.

Once population density is substantially below that, there are not enough people to support public transit outside specific routes. Most people will need a car in their daily life. You can still find basic services such as supermarkets within a walking distance, but more specialized services such as restaurants and coffee shops become scarce outside central areas.

You could still have a mix in that area. A handful of apartment buildings or multi-family homes/lots at medium density could solve the density problem without going overkill

How do you feel about medium density? I live in a neighborhood with some of the qualities you describe, and it has lots of small courtyard condos, and 2-3 story apartment buildings. These would've been illegal to build up until the last year or so, but I feel like they're not at all disruptive. I would say even a 5 story building on the main streets is fine in the kind of neighborhood you're describing. This gets you a lot of density without necessarily changing the feel of the neighborhood that much.

They built tall, 3 story, modern "block" townhomes in the backyard next to my 100+ year-old home. They stick out (nothing else on the block is remotely as tall or modern), block sunlight in my back yard all winter, and critically damaged a 100 year old tree in my backyard (of course, nothing I can do about that--developer got away with it).

They are a massive eyesore and have made my outdoor space just...frustrating and no longer private. Every time I go back there, I see the giant black wall next door. We're planning to put up 30ft tall, thin trees, at our expense, just to try and restore the space to where it was before. Developer walks away with his money and I get to pay for it.

The challenge with medium density is that it's built without existing residents' thoughts in mind w/ regards to footprint, design, size, etc. You end up with neighborhoods that aren't cohesive. Of course, requiring existing residents' input means that there would probably never be new housing, so that isn't a realistic option.

The people that moved in are great people, and we need more housing where I live. Change is gonna happen whether I like it or not. We have a housing crisis. New housing is eventually going to be built somewhere, and it's going to come for neighborhoods with the most walkability and services first.

> Of course, requiring existing residents' input means that there would probably never be new housing, so that isn't a realistic option.

Yeah it's unfortunate there's not really a way to say "this is getting built, but you have some influence on the details". From what I've seen, a lot of cities have things like design review and environmental review, but they're just used for predatory delay, which just inflates costs and timelines.

You want to live in St Louis then. Not the suburbs but the city of St. Louis. It matches your requirements to a T. Outside St. Louis city county however is the complete opposite.