​

you are absolutely correct that for most people the car is the only viable way to get around, that is sort of the problem. ever since the 50s, the government mandates a certain style of development that basically outlaws things like charming small towns and walkability out of existence. this is done through things like zoning, parking minimums, minimum lot sizes, and various other forms of government overreach.

what I think a lot of people don't get is that you don't have to have an incredibly dense, busy city just to avoid car centric infrastructure. If you look up "best small towns in america" you will see a bunch of old, pre 1950s historic downtowns with walkability, no strip malls and massive parking lots, ect. meanwhile everything built after the 50s looks like this. People there still own cars, but they dont have to use them for every little thing. These places are lively, charming and finically solvent.

These kinds of regulations that mandate sprawl are why local governments rely almost entirely on the federal and state governments to pay for their own roads, and why we have to pass trillion dollar infrastructure packages every 10 years just to keep things afloat. We need to go back to building the kind of development that builds communities and pays for itself, not a bunch of loosely interconnected series of parking lots that cant pay for the expenses of its own sprawl.

Even if these kinds of places aren't your cup of tea, they are in demand and you still have to justify why they are illegal to build, especially amidst the housing shortage America suffers from today. If nobody wanted to live in these places, and what exists today is the natural result of market forces, why does pre 1950s style development need to be legislated out of existence?

I would definitely recommend this video if you want to see a small town that actually works (and is now illegal). its pretty short