Your first statement is statistically incorrect. 78% of people polled by the NAR want to have more walkable neighborhoods. Mixed-use planning makes neighborhoods walkable. So far we primarily build our cities for cars. If the only choice you have to quickly and safely get around is by driving, it's not really a choice at that point. Therefore you are forced to drive, even if you would rather only be a 10 minute train ride away. We just need to build our workplaces and stores closer to our houses, so we don't need to funnel everyone through an expensive and over-developed road system. Build a tram down a major city center. Build an elevated bike path. Build a bike and pedestrian only bridge. Build roads with barrier-separated bike lanes (see France, Netherlands). Multi-use zoning gives people different options for transportation that are economically better for citizens and the city. Adding on to that, condensed walkable cities are proven to be much more financially productive, since the cost of maintaining suburban roads is heavily subsidized, causes a huge increase in housing prices and often have little to no business . Suburban sprawl is the reason we are dependent on cars instead of trains which have been quantitatively proven as THE most efficient way to travel, short or long distances! When you are making zoning laws for large cities, you need to think about if you are really maximizing social benefit, and not just overinflating a need for car-dependent infrastructure. It's always possible to solve the need to drive with good zoning and city planning infrastructure: whether it's urban, suburban, or rural. Just look at the countries that are doing it best and people will say that they love their daily life much more without the daily headache of driving, because there are people in government like Dan Burden who are "maximizing social benefit" and not maximizing gas profits. If you are car-free, you could rent a car/van when you have a need for the extra space, but for your day to day life, it's much easier to take a train/subway across the street from your residence with a beautiful walking path that leads directly to it and be at work in 5 minutes, at the same time, everyday. A survey was polled that asked people if they missed their commute during covid; more walkers and bikers missed their commute compared to car drivers. Car infrastructure takes up an unimaginably huge amount of the space in our cities and reduces walkability. Cars are noisy, polluting and unsafe to be around. One last thing I'll mention: class segregation is a natural feature of the housing market demand pricing. Houses near environmentally damaged land is worth less, such as the houses closest to highways that regularly get demolished to build bigger highways. Meanwhile, one train can carry the same human capacity as two opposing five-lane highways depending on the number of trains.

@@iaincunningham7926 your first paragraph is way off, I said density and you reply with people wanting walkable neighborhoods. Two separate things but often conflated by propagandists as you have no arguments for it so you change topic. Lawyer talk No, we build cities for humans, not cars. Again another misdirection by you. Very very few places require you to have a car. Again this is a choice people make that you want to remove No we do not need to build our workplaces and shops nearer, there should be a clear divide and mixed use developments are a disaster. We need to keep work and life separate unless all you car about is work and shopping which so far is the only reason I've seen people talk it up. Pure laziness. I can't walk or cycle everywhere and rely on my car. It's really narrow minded of you to think otherwise about anyone Condensed cities are not more economically viable, they are worse and restrict people's time and income. We don't depend on car unless you choose. You really seem to struggle with the concept of free choice

@@iaincunningham7926 renting a car 4 or 5 times a week is stupid costs more in time and money. It is not a serious option. You should be embarrassed even suggesting it Again, couldn't think of anything worse than living 5 mins from work and to be realistic that will never happen. You and everyone else backing this haven't thought about the labour force at all. What of you cant get a job in your district that you are trained for ? Take a pay cut? That's isn't freedom or liberating. Travel to another district? That alone destroys the whole idea of a walkable city, costs time and money. Force people out of education and into jobs? Seriously, stop as think about this for a second.

@@iaincunningham7926 social benefit? When zonig a city you need to think about if you are really maximising social benefit or just attacking cars Essentially walkable cities will not take away the need to drive, they will only restrict your standard of life negatively. I'm glad you agree and this will see class segregation and the poorest suffer yet you talk about maximizing social benefit. Doesn't make sense unless you only care about yourself which so far is common amongst fans of walkable cities

@@iaincunningham7926 you don't care for other people or their thoughts, arrogant and ignorant. Look how many questions I asked and you ignored them as you can't answer them or you know if you do answer them you'll make a fool of yourself