I see no evidence at all that increased density is a livability problem for families, and plenty of --- in fact, overwhelming --- that inadequate density is a bar for access to communities in the first place. So, no, I reject this argument outright.
The evidence is that people would rather drive 2 hours each way so their family can have less density where they live. They vote with their time and wallet. This isn't some theory, it's true all over the US
They can do that. But people who live 15 minutes from downtown also want to have less density where they live --- most homeowners would! --- and that is a problem.
You just said increased density isn't a problem for families and then describe people wanting less density a problem. If it's a problem for society that families want less density, then it's a problem for families if society want more density.
I don't believe it is a problem, but people can have preferences for things that don't rise to the level of public policy problems, and if they'd prefer to live out in the country, God bless them.
A lack of density closer to cities is a real problem: it makes living close to where you work prohibitively expensive, and promotes sprawl.
As the other poster said, the urban sprawl and ridiculous commutes that you see in
every city are overwhelming evidence. The lack of family-suitable housing in urban centres is to blame, and the prioritization along single metrics, like obsessing over "density-only" because it generates more returns on investment, shares a lot of the blame. Density is not the only metric to consider.
No, they're not. Urban sprawl is the result of deficient density. People who want low density can commute. For any fixed population, decreasing density must, obviously, increase commute times and sprawl. This isn't complicated, though appeals to "return on investment" cloud the issue.
Of course, part of the subtext of these discussions is that proponents of SFZ and owner-occupancy tend also to believe that their favorite cities should have controlled population growth. It's just not a good look to say that out loud.
> No, they're not. Urban sprawl is the result of deficient density.
That's one cause. The other cause that you seem to refuse to understand is creating the wrong kind of density. An urban centre full of 1 bedroom apartments is still going to create urban sprawl because families just can't live there, thus driving them out of the city centre even though they still work there. I just don't get why you refuse to understand this very obvious point.
Because it's not a real problem, but rather one you've invented, and in the real world we have the exact opposite problem, of huge swathes of desirable residential land all SFZ'd, so you can't even build town homes on a parcel.
It's amazing you keep saying this when I've said multiple times now that I'm living in exactly that kind of city (a large North American city), and it's not the only one with this exact problem. But sure, keep ignoring the data for your simplistic solution.
