> But while they might say they like those benefits, most people will choose the benefits of low density living,
This is heavily dependent on one's conditioning. I grew up in a late mid-century low density suburb - nothing like the exurban sprawl you see today, but still very far from walkable. I instinctively moved from that to high density older neighborhoods as an adult.
At least at the moment the trend tends to be towards demand for the benefits of increased density, as the culture has shifted to valuing experiences more than large (expensive-to-maintain) spaces.
However, with the old and still vibrant urban neighborhoods now priced out of reach for most, people who are seeking the benefits of urban living are attempting to densify first ring suburbs, which is leading to intergenerational conflicts in many suburban city halls.
> Not to mention the benefit of being able to segregate children into different schools by socioeconomic status, by restricting different incomes from living in the same school district via zoning laws requiring large lots and expensive properties, which also leads to unfeasible public transportation.
I agree that these factors are all present, and are usually enabled by planning and zoning rules, which often function as a replacement for the illegal racial neighborhood covenant system that used to be common in the US. IMO the current system is a shame, but I'm also aware that the system is working for the subset who can afford to exist on it's beneficial side, and those people tend to vote in local elections.
>At least at the moment the trend tends to be towards demand for the benefits of increased density, as the culture has shifted to valuing experiences more than large (expensive-to-maintain) spaces.
In the US, everyone in my circles acts the same way, until they have children. Then the priority becomes quality of school, which really means socioeconomic status of all the children in the school, which leads to the well known rule of thumb to buy the cheapest house in the most expensive most suburban neighborhood you can afford. Or be rich enough to send your kids to private school if you want to continue to stay urban.
I personally think that sucks (for the most part). But there are just a handful of cities where you can simultaneously satisfy the constraints of jobs, kids, decent schools, and reasonably priced housing. My wife and I couldn’t find anything in DC (we weren’t willing to spend $1.8 million on a house) so after years of living downtown, we finally bit the bullet and moved to the suburbs.
> And for that reason, the brief trend of urbanization has already reversed
The current flight to the suburbs is a matter of unaffordability, which is very different than the forces that drove previous waves of suburbanization.
People being priced out of desirable urban areas hasn't necessarily resulted in a reversal of urbanism, but rather an increasing pressure to urbanize the more "affordable" (in price per sqft) suburban areas.
You see this in efforts to change suburban planning codes to allow multiple dwellings per lot, or to allow bars and restaurants to be open later. Both of those are examples of initiatives that have faced pretty stiff opposition from longtime suburban residents.
Developers have caught on to this too, which is why you see developments like the one described in the article, however shallow the implementations may be.
I agree that there is a lot of push and pull, and huge financial and quality of life trade-offs that everyone is forced to make.
People want it all: 100 acres in the middle of downtown, with great suburban schools nearby. Don't forget about various shopping, parks, lakes, or whatever else your preferred lifestyle wants. Depending on your situation in life you will choose from the different available compromises.
Note I said available compromises. Legal zoning rules often prohibit some of the choices. In most suburbs you cannot buy a house within walking distance of shopping - so if great schools are important you may be forced to do without great shopping.
what many of us want is a change to ... Legal zoning rules.
Along with the racism that they've been used to enforce, zoning rules in the US have done more to contribute to the creation of hollowed-out communities than almost anything else. Residential-only neighborhoods, total segregation of retail from residence, parking requirements, exclusion of large scale, quality rental accomodation, focus on single family lifestyle, lack of sidewalks ... bit by bit you go from towns that work to towns that are just dormitories.
This is heavily dependent on one's conditioning. I grew up in a late mid-century low density suburb - nothing like the exurban sprawl you see today, but still very far from walkable. I instinctively moved from that to high density older neighborhoods as an adult.
At least at the moment the trend tends to be towards demand for the benefits of increased density, as the culture has shifted to valuing experiences more than large (expensive-to-maintain) spaces.
However, with the old and still vibrant urban neighborhoods now priced out of reach for most, people who are seeking the benefits of urban living are attempting to densify first ring suburbs, which is leading to intergenerational conflicts in many suburban city halls.
> Not to mention the benefit of being able to segregate children into different schools by socioeconomic status, by restricting different incomes from living in the same school district via zoning laws requiring large lots and expensive properties, which also leads to unfeasible public transportation.
I agree that these factors are all present, and are usually enabled by planning and zoning rules, which often function as a replacement for the illegal racial neighborhood covenant system that used to be common in the US. IMO the current system is a shame, but I'm also aware that the system is working for the subset who can afford to exist on it's beneficial side, and those people tend to vote in local elections.