[sirsar]

LA has an order of magnitude more population than is required for functioning public transit. But you're right they don't have the density.

The key is to realize the cars themselves killed density.

Parking lots, parking spaces, and extra lanes all conspire to push humans and human spaces further apart. This then makes walking less feasible, cars more required, and more space required to accommodate those cars in a feedback loop.

Taller buildings are not required for density, far from it. Look at Somerville, MA, where just about nothing is higher than 3 stories, yet they fit almost 20,000 people into a square mile -- and they like it. What they don't fit is 20,000 parking spaces, and that makes all the difference.

[paul_f]

The car did not directly kill density, it enabled people to choose less density.

[jasonwatkinspdx]

A small number of people like Robert Moses wielded enormous power over how our civil infrastructure was built in the post war period. Moses was famously opposed to public transit, going so far as to deliberately build bridges with overhead clearance too low for buses on routes to one of his beach developments.

During this period the federal dept of transportation was offering to pay 90% of urban freeway projects. There are a few famous examples of people negotiating a different outcome, like the light rail vs mt hood highway in Portland, Oregon. But the bulk of local politicians simply took the free money and built massive freeway infrastructure without much consideration of the future.

So no, this was not some broadly democratic choice or invisible hand of the market. It was a small number of politically powerful people making unilateral decisions using vast government funds.

[agentdrtran]

I love making the free choice between a car that costs hundreds each month vs unlimited public transit for $90

[dionidium]

There is absolutely nothing like a free market in housing. Many low-density suburbs would already have naturally densified if they were allowed to. The reason they have not is that it's illegal. People aren't choosing less density. They're banning density.

[drewrv]

If that's what people actually wanted, they wouldn't need to regulate it with zoning laws.

[Analemma_]

That's a distinction without a difference.

[vkou]

It doesn't enable people to choose, it made a choice and forced it upon everyone.

[AnthonyMouse]

Somerville, MA is in the middle of the Boston metro area. It's saturated with three and four story buildings and the downtown is 10+ story buildings. It's tall buildings.

LA County is full of detached single family homes and undeveloped land.

[Texasian]

Downtown? What downtown? We don’t have one.

If your talking about Assembly Row, that’s a “town center” development. Used to be a movie theater and a sea of parking lots. It doesn’t factor into Somerville’s style of urbanism.

[sirsar]

OP called out "skyscrapers". What counts as the precise cutoff for "tall buildings" is always going to be a matter of opinion.

But I live in Cambridge, MA and I can assure you Somerville would remain one of the densest cities in the union if every last building therein was lopped down to 3 stories by a giant lawnmower.

[d_burfoot]

> The key is to realize the cars themselves killed density.

People have very naive explanations of why the US is so bad at density and urbanism. Canada and Australia, which are very similar to the US, have very dense cities like Montreal, Toronto, and Melbourne. Do they not have cars in Canada and Australia? If you want to find the real reason why all other developed countries have dense cities with good public transport, but the US doesn't, you need to look at what's different between the US and all other developed countries.

[chrisco255]

Canada might have certain urban areas with public transport, but huge swaths of the country depend on cars. That is the same situation as the U.S. except we've got 10x the population as Canada...so we've got more people in more places. As for Australia, a huge chunk of the country is desert, and most people are situated along the coasts.

The U.S. doesn't want urbanism. People by and large do not want to live in dense urban areas. Some people like it, but it's not everyone's cup of tea. With the remote work revolution, it's going to become even less appealing to live in a dense urban area.

[bluedino]

From the internet:

Even Vancouver—Canada’s densest major city with 5,493 people per square kilometre—ranks 13th out of 30, and is significantly less dense than San Francisco (7,171 people per square kilometre), a comparable west coast city. In Toronto, there are 4,457 people per square kilometre. In fact, Toronto’s population could triple and the city would still barely have the density of Brooklyn (14,541).

And crucially, Toronto’s population density is less than many other American cities including Philadelphia (4,512), Chicago (4,594) and Boston (5,376).

[apeescape]

My (simplified) understanding is that it's more about the ideals. Back in the day, part of the American dream was to live in a semi-secluded suburban neighborhood and own 2+ cars per family. Only the poor and young people were expected to live in city centers. Therefore, the affluent citizens spread out, and cities evolved to cater to their needs, i.e., support private cars and the road system at the cost of not properly funding public transportation. In European cities the ideal was the opposite, and it was thought that only peasants would stay secluded and all the affluent people should live in the cities, which in turn should have great public transportation for practical reasons. I'd imagine that ideal extended to Canadian and Australian cities as well.

[unabridged]

The difference is the treatment of poor & homeless. Public transit buildings/vehicles are some of the only inside spaces where they can spend time. Then people with enough money avoid public transit as much as possible. Then they vote against more funding for transit because it is not useful to them.

[perardi]

Toronto: not actually that dense.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+density+tor...

Well…OK, the core of Toronto is pretty dense, but the megasprawl that is amalgamated Toronto is not that dense.

But good luck getting by in any non-major metro area in Canada without a car. Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver…maybe Ottawa…it's doable, but the second you get into the suburbs, or cottage country, it's Subaru time.

[908B64B197]

> very dense cities like Montreal

Remember it was founded in 1642. The older a city is, the more dense it is.

[jayd16]

LA also happens to have a vast bus system that is heavily used.

We do not have subways partly because it would be very hard to build them in LA's geology. Seismic activity as well things like natural tar pits.

Historically I don't think its right to say cars killed the density. LA was several cities that grew into each other. Part of the reason LA is so wide is because of white flight to the outskirts. Do you build transit for something like that?

[Domenic_S]

> almost 20,000 people into a square mile

That's less than 1/3 the density of Manhattan and about on par with SF.

[theplague42]

Right...

>where just about nothing is higher than 3 stories

The point is that cars destroy density regardless of what your building height limits are.