Grids are inefficient because too much pavement and unsafe intersections/traffic.

Loops and Cul-de-Sacs, the typical suburbs, easy to get lost and long walking routes.

The real prize would be engineering a modular way to cost-effectively convert some grids or Cul-de-Sacs into Fused Grids.

But none of those things are the same thing as doing so because you wanted a second bathroom.

One of the things that irks me the most about suburbia and the way people think about it is this notion that one ought to make certain kinds of choices, because, like, that’s just what people do. Sure, if you’re going to live in Town X because of your spouse’s job, hey, they have McMansions there, so why not just buy one? Who doesn’t want 5 bathrooms and an acre of yard to mow? When of course the reality is that you might NOT want 5 bathrooms and an acre of yard. But you’re encouraged to go for that, because, heck, why not?

And then, of course, the existence of McMansions (or any other negative aspect of sprawl) is defended as a deeply individual choice, and one is considered to be a communist for suggesting that McMansions (for example) are not a great thing. Even though most people probably really don’t want to live in them that much.

Copenhagen is genius. I imagine that those quick jaunts to downtown, even just for lunch, really contributes to the downtown economy.

For example, maybe the small taste of downtown inspires people to come back for a longer stay next time. Smart.

I just assume that there are plenty of smaller, more dense options closer to work, and that most folks take on a longer commute because they want more room. Personally, I’m not so keen on cleaning that extra bathroom or watering the lawn. But I don’t have to look far from my cubicle to see people who commute home each evening beyond other, more convenient options, because they got a good deal on an apartment, or they are closer to their family, or they like the schools, or their current neighborhood has lots of restaurants and bars, or their spouse has a civil-service job in the town where they live.

Even with the ARC/THE program, NJ Transit’s projections show that passenger loads will roughly double not long after the tunnels and new station are complete. Crowding, not cost, was the worst aspect of the commute when I did it a few years ago (albeit from a town much closer to NYC than Hackettstown). My wife tolerates it only because she loves her job. I hope that we’ll see more short intrastate commuting if communities drop the “bedroom community” mindset, and home and work are located at reasonable distances from each other, wherever they are.

In any case, my original point was that there is a wide diversity of what people want. Some people value being in the country, some prefer living in towns, and others want to live in cities; and all options have trade-offs that people rate differently.

Why? I mean, not to harsh on individual choices (who knows why different people want what they want?), but I don’t entirely get this. This might be exactly the difference between American “convenience” and European “inconvenience”. You would actually prefer to waste time cutting grass and cleaning an extra bathroom? You’d prefer to pay the larger water bills from the sprinklers? You’d prefer to heat, water, and electrify a superfluous room?

This isn’t really “convenience”, it’s a status symbol. Which isn’t to say you shouldn’t have what you want, but it’s not exactly axiomatic that a yard and an extra bathroom are preferable to a townhouse in walking distance from public transit.

I recently saw a documentary about American small town life which was produced for a European audience. My favorite part was the incredulity about Americans and their lawns.

Thinking about my friends and family, especially people who are outside of my local NYC area social circle, a lot of them are souring on the sprawl and traffic of suburban life. Quite a few people I know have recently relocated back into cities. Even more have chosen older less sprawled out neighborhoods within a suburban environment. I also know people who, having done the latter, are discovering that they LOVE living in a denser environment and really are looking into relocating to a major city or moving into more urbanized areas.

Obviously, “some people I know” does not constitute “en masse”. But I doubt it’s as unpopular as you make it out to be, especially among younger people. Let’s just say that I don’t know anyone my age who is dying for more sprawl, a longer commute, or better proximity to strip malls and big box stores.

But getting back to your original point, about changes in zoning. I believe that such infill, mixed-use development as you describe is better suited to closer-in suburbs like Bloomfield or the Oranges. Hackettstown is a half hour west of Dover and a full hour west of Morristown via NJ Transit. If I’m living that far away from work, I’d like a big yard and second bathroom, not just a townhouse around the corner from the train station.

I feel that these small numbers support my argument that most of clever-title’s cohort is still commuting to New York or other job centers outside Warren County.

Maybe Hackettstown, NJ is developing a reputation as a place to both live and work. Not necessarily a commuters paradise, but perhaps people commute less to New York, and work only a couple of blocks away.

For the record, I know absolutely nothing about Hackettstown besides what Wikipedia just told me.

We need reductions of zoning restrictions (minimum lot size, residential-only, etc.)that make it difficult for builders to build infill, mixed-use development, or smaller dwellings, whether small detached houses or solidly-built rowhouses to serve that demand.

You have a tradeoff between privacy and sociability. At one extreme you have the college dorm complained about above, at the other extreme you have the McMansion on a cul-de-sac with no “third place” at all and nowhere to go except by motor vehicle. The Brooklyn rowhouse I live in, and the railroad suburb chosen by the commentor above, are more balanced.

When you are 35 years old, already have a spouse, already have friends, already are in a career, and don’t have time for much else, the benefits of a social space that encourage new acquintances may seem marginal. So many that age chose their own castle.

That castle, however, limits the ability of their children to gain their independence, is unattractive to teens and young adults seeking social contact (see Rush, Subdivisions), and becomes increasingly inconvenient and isolating in old age. We are in the process, for example, of helping my in-laws relocate from a rural retirement home where it is a 15 minute drive for a quart of milk to a one-bedroom apartment in a downtown, because life is becomming impossible where they are. One third the square footage, three times the life.

So if people in their 30s took the long view, perhaps they would choose differently. If, for example, they wanted a place where their kids could walk to their school, the store, or friends’ house, and could make friends locally, that would alter their views.

My point is that the low-carbon footprints depend on the infrastructure of life, and in that sense Europeans have an immediate advantage.

In other words, inconvenience is determined by infrastructure, and infrastructure is to a large extent determined by government priorities. The Swedes take the train to the airport because their government made it much faster, cheaper and simpler than driving; people in Arizona drive because their government favored that way of doing things.

The much more interesting question is how the governments got political support for these priorities. Rosenthal touches on that, and so does Ryan, but I’m not sure if anyone has come up with any good answers. It’s partly a feedback loop, but not entirely.

As Brad notes, power sources play a major role, whether one is talking about greater use of natural gas, the French nuclear industry, or Iceland’s geothermal capacity.”

I’m not sure what the point is supposed to be there, but power sources also “play a major role” in whether everyone can afford to blast their clothes with hot air twice a week. France’s nuclear power is expensive, so they use less. That nuclear is cleaner is a benefit on top of its expense. So, in France, yes there is a “tolerance of inconvenience” and it is born of practicality. They didn’t have coal or oil but they had des idées. The public was not somehow convinced that this would be painless, but that it would be necessary to preserve their heritage.

Like Komanoff, I don’t see what this adversarial post adds to the discussion. It touts conclusions that were supposed to be evident in the original, while wanting to bury the fact that Europeans currently make very different sacrifices from us. I say different, because as everyone here knows there are many sacrifices in the American energy arrangement, they’re just not as immediately obvious or consequent to consumers. We are never going to trick people into thinking that it’s just as easy in the immediate sense to consume less, because it is not. We can and must do it by explaining the long term necessity and actual benefits of living differently.

To all as to the article, Living in Europe is a different experience. Your living spaces are smaller. The ability to drive much harder or non existent. Etc. But for these changes to happen here we really need a severe tax on fuel. I have long stated (mostly on rail discussions) that where someone lives is not out of necessity as is often said, but by choice. I personally choose to live outside the major city but in a small town within walking distance to my job and short commute to the wife’s. We have only one car by choice. And we actually live a good life.

Americans need to wake up and stop crying how things can’t be changed. Even if we on the blog were the only ones to change something today, it’d be a start. And others notice. People I work with who commute much further than I do have started moving closer or car pooling or in 1 case taking a bus instead of driving. One example can rub off. Too bad politicians are too stupid to understand.

Much of this is likely based on familiarity. People in the US have been living in suburbs for several generations, so an en masse migration to cities is unlikely. It will take generations. Rising prices for fuel will accelerate it on the margin, but many people will give up other things before giving up a house in the exurbs. Many people in Europe, having never lived in American-style suburbs don’t have a desire to live that way.

After living in a dorm and apartments for 6 years, and experiencing the sounds and smells of my neighbors; I am unwilling to give up a detached house. I chose to buy a smaller place in a suburb with traditional main street shopping and by commuter rail within walking distance, and within cycling distance to my office, Those were trade-offs that appealed to me (that is, I don’t want a big house to maintain, and I like to cycle to work), but I don’t expect anyone else to place the same values on those aspects of living.

You see the same approach to conservation of farmland, highly valued in the areas immediately abutting cities.

My personal opinion is that the parliamentary character of their governments allow cities to have their own political power and now with United Europe regions have diminished the connection to the national capitals and can look to the UE to resolve many land-use and environmental conflicts that the in the US must be negotiated in the Senate. And, if those government structures don’t work out, they might change them.

We won’t ever change ours since we have a Holy Constitution, Divinely issue by God Himself guiding the steady hands of the slaveholders. That is Ideological Hegemony.