No More Freeways PDX

[jakeroot]

I just don't see why it is necessary to oppose the buildout of legitimately useful infrastructure. As you say, the extra lane will be "instantly clogged like it was before" - good! That means it'll be seeing a lot of use, and more people will be able to get through where they're going. I fail to see the problem here.

The problem is the lack of vision. No consideration for the future. When do cities stop sprawling? How many lanes is enough? Cities grow, of course. That's inevitable as long as the population increases. But we need to think smarter than just "roads".

it's much more fun to party while drunk, something that is absolutely 100% irresponsible to do with a car.

And this is one perk of transit access.

Most trips, however, are not to a party. Nor does everyone who goes to a party have a desire to consume alcohol. So this is a niche consideration, which does not impact the viability of car travel as a mode transportation in the vast majority of cases.

Most trips that people take on weekends is more than likely social, and I think there's a good chance that alcohol will be involved. Our infrastructure should be built around human nature, which is often not forgiving.

[Plutonic Panda]

When do cities stop sprawling? When the population stops growing probably. People need places to live and not all of them want to be stacked on top of each other in a concrete jungle.

[kalvado]

I just don't see why it is necessary to oppose the buildout of legitimately useful infrastructure. As you say, the extra lane will be "instantly clogged like it was before" - good! That means it'll be seeing a lot of use, and more people will be able to get through where they're going. I fail to see the problem here.

The problem is the lack of vision. No consideration for the future. When do cities stop sprawling? How many lanes is enough? Cities grow, of course. That's inevitable as long as the population increases. But we need to think smarter than just "roads".

it's much more fun to party while drunk, something that is absolutely 100% irresponsible to do with a car.

And this is one perk of transit access.

Most trips, however, are not to a party. Nor does everyone who goes to a party have a desire to consume alcohol. So this is a niche consideration, which does not impact the viability of car travel as a mode transportation in the vast majority of cases.

Most trips that people take on weekends is more than likely social, and I think there's a good chance that alcohol will be involved. Our infrastructure should be built around human nature, which is often not forgiving.

If you look at drunk pedestrian fatalities, you would realize that public transportation doesn't work as a risk mitigation factor. In fact, it looks opposite. Alcohol is a HUGE risk factor for pedestrians. So I would say a door-to-door is the only somewhat safe mode of transportation for intoxicated.
Now what we need is a drinking culture, not zero-tolerance prohibitions and bans.  Infrastructure should be build to match demand of dynamic society, and people should stop making up reasons for their agenda - especially if such fake reasoning will be paid for by human lives.

[hotdogPi]

Walking while drunk is more dangerous than driving while drunk (per mile), but if you are riding a bus or a train, or you are a passenger in someone else's car, you're not the one in control, so it's safer.

[kalvado]

Walking while drunk is more dangerous than driving while drunk (per mile), but if you are riding a bus or a train, or you are a passenger in someone else's car, you're not the one in control, so it's safer.

And eliminating getting to/from bus portion of the journey (and bus normally runs on busy streets!) seems to be critical for safety. Taxy, Lyft, Uber... So eliminating highways makes problem worse.

[Duke87]

The problem is the lack of vision. No consideration for the future. When do cities stop sprawling? How many lanes is enough? Cities grow, of course. That's inevitable as long as the population increases. But we need to think smarter than just "roads".

I'm all for thinking smarter than just "roads", but again - why does that make widening I-5 a problem? It's not like doing so precludes also making improvements to TriMet, or building out more bike infrastructure. All of these things can and should be done.

Most trips that people take on weekends is more than likely social, and I think there's a good chance that alcohol will be involved. Our infrastructure should be built around human nature, which is often not forgiving.

I think you grossly overestimate the percentage of people who consume alcohol when they leave home on the weekend. Sure, someone who's young and going out to party on a Saturday night is probably going to drink, but parents taking their kids to the zoo or to go see the latest Disney movie on a Saturday are not. Teenagers going to hang out at the mall are not (okay some of them maybe, but most of them no). Grandma and Grandpa going out to breakfast at the local pancake house are not.

[sparker]

The problem is the lack of vision. No consideration for the future. When do cities stop sprawling? How many lanes is enough? Cities grow, of course. That's inevitable as long as the population increases. But we need to think smarter than just "roads".

I'm all for thinking smarter than just "roads", but again - why does that make widening I-5 a problem? It's not like doing so precludes also making improvements to TriMet, or building out more bike infrastructure. All of these things can and should be done.

Unfortunately, the politicized nature of the "non-road" advocates tends to posit a "zero-sum" approach, where methodology "A" involves a full repudiation of methodology "B".  This often manifests itself in not only the process of not advocating any road improvements, but in teardown efforts (e.g. Dallas, Syracuse, etc.) -- trying to eliminate as many traces of the previous idiom as possible.  Some of these advocates seem to think that collectively we've reached a postconsumer/postcapitalist state -- despite all evidence that disabuses such notions (which may not pervade their "circles" of information -- a version of "alternate facts" or tribal identification might be in play here). 

If you haven't guessed, I'm not a fan of ideological approaches to provision of public goods (and, correspondingly, ideologues of all stripes generally aren't fans of some of my analyses!).  My position is that if I'm not pissing off partisans of both left and right then I'm not doing a very good analytical job!

[kalvado]

The problem is the lack of vision. No consideration for the future. When do cities stop sprawling? How many lanes is enough? Cities grow, of course. That's inevitable as long as the population increases. But we need to think smarter than just "roads".

I'm all for thinking smarter than just "roads", but again - why does that make widening I-5 a problem? It's not like doing so precludes also making improvements to TriMet, or building out more bike infrastructure. All of these things can and should be done.

Unfortunately, the politicized nature of the "non-road" advocates tends to posit a "zero-sum" approach, where methodology "A" involves a full repudiation of methodology "B".  This often manifests itself in not only the process of [/i]not[/i] advocating any road improvements, but in teardown efforts (e.g. Dallas, Syracuse, etc.) -- trying to eliminate as many traces of the previous idiom as possible.  Some of these advocates seem to think that collectively we've reached a postconsumer/postcapitalist state -- despite all evidence that disabuses such notions (which may not pervade their "circles" of information -- a version of "alternate facts" or tribal identification might be in play here). 

If you haven't guessed, I'm not a fan of ideological approaches to provision of public goods (and, correspondingly, ideologues of all stripes generally aren't fans of some of my analyses!).  My position is that if I'm not pissing off partisans of both left and right then I'm not doing a very good analytical job!

Well, it is getting off-topic, but since you want analytical, not ideological approach - Syracuse issue is really really complicated, not ideology driven. .

[jwolfer]

I love the concrete jungle!

Repeat until is true

Z981

[Plutonic Panda]

I love the concrete jungle!

Repeat until is true

Z981

A concrete jungle where it's transit system is superior because it packs people in like sardines.

[Bruce]

I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.

[compdude787]

I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.

No, it's not politics, it's just that people with families don't want their families crammed into an apartment. This ain't Europe. Also, suburbs are just more peaceful and often tend to be safer for kids and just a heck of a lot nicer than the city. I like detached homes amid lots of trees. Those kind of suburban developments are MUCH nicer than the new kind of suburbs where houses are crammed together on tiny 3,000 SF lots. I would not like living in one of those houses. Also, walking along the streets in one of those developments feels like a concrete jungle just because of how few trees there are (with houses crammed so close together, there simply isn't room for any large trees, sadly).

I really don't like concrete jungles. The only urban developments that I like are old brick buildings from 100 years ago that have really intricate facades with lots of detail. You know, kinda like how trees have lots of details on them. As for single family houses, my favorite are craftsman houses.

[jwolfer]

I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.

People like having green space and trees near them.. not having to plan a day trip to see a tree

Z981

[Plutonic Panda]

I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.

That is kind of ironic given that sprawl has more nature intertwined in it than urban areas though I do understand what you're saying. It certainly isn't the same as it was before. Humans will always have an effect. I'll personally take my suburban sprawl for where I want to live. I live in the heart of Hollywood right now and I'm ready to get out of urban lifestyle. It's a nice option to have an I can certainly see the appeal of it, but it isn't for me.

I like my wide freeways and roads to accommodate me with the other majority of the population who wants to live in the suburbs and I'll take my bike trails off the road where it's safer and more peaceful. To me the suburbs have more nature than urban areas do just because of how spread out and how more green space they have.

[AlexandriaVA]

Lawns aren't natural for a large part of North America. At least upper nw doesn't suffer from water issues. I can't believe people in the SW are big on lawns. Much more water-efficient desert plants.

My point is that a lot of suburbs may not be urban, but their "nature" elements are a bit misleading at times. Many suburbs were forests (trees) or fields (grasslands) before being developed.

[Bruce]

I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.

No, it's not politics, it's just that people with families don't want their families crammed into an apartment. This ain't Europe. Also, suburbs are just more peaceful and often tend to be safer for kids and just a heck of a lot nicer than the city. I like detached homes amid lots of trees. Those kind of suburban developments are MUCH nicer than the new kind of suburbs where houses are crammed together on tiny 3,000 SF lots. I would not like living in one of those houses. Also, walking along the streets in one of those developments feels like a concrete jungle just because of how few trees there are (with houses crammed so close together, there simply isn't room for any large trees, sadly).

I really don't like concrete jungles. The only urban developments that I like are old brick buildings from 100 years ago that have really intricate facades with lots of detail. You know, kinda like how trees have lots of details on them. As for single family houses, my favorite are craftsman houses.

Tell that to the many families in European cities who do just fine living in dense quarters. They can own a home that shares a solid wall with their neighbors (rowhomes and brownstones), or live in a communal setting with shared daycare facilities, or live in apartment (an option used by a lot of younger families across the U.S.). In fact, these kinds of arrangements often encourage a better sense of neighborliness and improve quality of life...who actually wants to mow their lawn to the HOA-mandated height anyway?

I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.

People like having green space and trees near them.. not having to plan a day trip to see a tree

Good news, we have these things called "parks" and "nature conservatories" where people can look at trees without having to leave their neighborhood. There's a magnificent development called "street trees" where you add trees (wait for it) TO YOUR STREET. It's brilliant!

Really, most suburbanites aren't living out there for "nature" and rarely take advantage of the greenspace (which takes a lot of resources to maintain). Having denser cities with decent access to truly wild areas (protected from sprawl) and excellent access to parks and other greenspaces within a short distance is much more natural for humans.

I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.

That is kind of ironic given that sprawl has more nature intertwined in it than urban areas though I do understand what you're saying. It certainly isn't the same as it was before. Humans will always have an effect. I'll personally take my suburban sprawl for where I want to live. I live in the heart of Hollywood right now and I'm ready to get out of urban lifestyle. It's a nice option to have an I can certainly see the appeal of it, but it isn't for me.

I like my wide freeways and roads to accommodate me with the other majority of the population who wants to live in the suburbs and I'll take my bike trails off the road where it's safer and more peaceful. To me the suburbs have more nature than urban areas do just because of how spread out and how more green space they have.

Suburbs are fine as long as they're constrained to otherwise useless land, include walkable/bikeable corridors, and aren't shackled by racist covenants (like many were and still are). Most suburbs aren't, however, new ones need to be stopped before they worsen a lot of the crises suffered by today's America. Obesity, racial inequality, income inequality, homelessness, environmental hazards, car-related deaths (America's major non-disease killer)...all can be tied to the stereotypical post-war suburb and the resistance to densifying areas.

[kalvado]

I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.

No, it's not politics, it's just that people with families don't want their families crammed into an apartment. This ain't Europe. Also, suburbs are just more peaceful and often tend to be safer for kids and just a heck of a lot nicer than the city. I like detached homes amid lots of trees. Those kind of suburban developments are MUCH nicer than the new kind of suburbs where houses are crammed together on tiny 3,000 SF lots. I would not like living in one of those houses. Also, walking along the streets in one of those developments feels like a concrete jungle just because of how few trees there are (with houses crammed so close together, there simply isn't room for any large trees, sadly).

I really don't like concrete jungles. The only urban developments that I like are old brick buildings from 100 years ago that have really intricate facades with lots of detail. You know, kinda like how trees have lots of details on them. As for single family houses, my favorite are craftsman houses.

Tell that to the many families in European cities who do just fine living in dense quarters. They can own a home that shares a solid wall with their neighbors (rowhomes and brownstones), or live in a communal setting with shared daycare facilities, or live in apartment (an option used by a lot of younger families across the U.S.). In fact, these kinds of arrangements often encourage a better sense of neighborliness and improve quality of life...who actually wants to mow their lawn to the HOA-mandated height anyway?

I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.

People like having green space and trees near them.. not having to plan a day trip to see a tree

Good news, we have these things called "parks" and "nature conservatories" where people can look at trees without having to leave their neighborhood. There's a magnificent development called "street trees" where you add trees (wait for it) TO YOUR STREET. It's brilliant!

Really, most suburbanites aren't living out there for "nature" and rarely take advantage of the greenspace (which takes a lot of resources to maintain). Having denser cities with decent access to truly wild areas (protected from sprawl) and excellent access to parks and other greenspaces within a short distance is much more natural for humans.

I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.

That is kind of ironic given that sprawl has more nature intertwined in it than urban areas though I do understand what you're saying. It certainly isn't the same as it was before. Humans will always have an effect. I'll personally take my suburban sprawl for where I want to live. I live in the heart of Hollywood right now and I'm ready to get out of urban lifestyle. It's a nice option to have an I can certainly see the appeal of it, but it isn't for me.

I like my wide freeways and roads to accommodate me with the other majority of the population who wants to live in the suburbs and I'll take my bike trails off the road where it's safer and more peaceful. To me the suburbs have more nature than urban areas do just because of how spread out and how more green space they have.

Suburbs are fine as long as they're constrained to otherwise useless land, include walkable/bikeable corridors, and aren't shackled by racist covenants (like many were and still are). Most suburbs aren't, however, new ones need to be stopped before they worsen a lot of the crises suffered by today's America. Obesity, racial inequality, income inequality, homelessness, environmental hazards, car-related deaths (America's major non-disease killer)...all can be tied to the stereotypical post-war suburb and the resistance to densifying areas.

let me guess.. You never been more than 3000 feet away from nearest paved road?

[Bruce]

I've been on hikes and around the national parks here, but that doesn't make my viewpoint less/more valid.

[jwolfer]

I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.

No, it's not politics, it's just that people with families don't want their families crammed into an apartment. This ain't Europe. Also, suburbs are just more peaceful and often tend to be safer for kids and just a heck of a lot nicer than the city. I like detached homes amid lots of trees. Those kind of suburban developments are MUCH nicer than the new kind of suburbs where houses are crammed together on tiny 3,000 SF lots. I would not like living in one of those houses. Also, walking along the streets in one of those developments feels like a concrete jungle just because of how few trees there are (with houses crammed so close together, there simply isn't room for any large trees, sadly).

I really don't like concrete jungles. The only urban developments that I like are old brick buildings from 100 years ago that have really intricate facades with lots of detail. You know, kinda like how trees have lots of details on them. As for single family houses, my favorite are craftsman houses.

Tell that to the many families in European cities who do just fine living in dense quarters. They can own a home that shares a solid wall with their neighbors (rowhomes and brownstones), or live in a communal setting with shared daycare facilities, or live in apartment (an option used by a lot of younger families across the U.S.). In fact, these kinds of arrangements often encourage a better sense of neighborliness and improve quality of life...who actually wants to mow their lawn to the HOA-mandated height anyway?

I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.

People like having green space and trees near them.. not having to plan a day trip to see a tree

Good news, we have these things called "parks" and "nature conservatories" where people can look at trees without having to leave their neighborhood. There's a magnificent development called "street trees" where you add trees (wait for it) TO YOUR STREET. It's brilliant!

Really, most suburbanites aren't living out there for "nature" and rarely take advantage of the greenspace (which takes a lot of resources to maintain). Having denser cities with decent access to truly wild areas (protected from sprawl) and excellent access to parks and other greenspaces within a short distance is much more natural for humans.

I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.

That is kind of ironic given that sprawl has more nature intertwined in it than urban areas though I do understand what you're saying. It certainly isn't the same as it was before. Humans will always have an effect. I'll personally take my suburban sprawl for where I want to live. I live in the heart of Hollywood right now and I'm ready to get out of urban lifestyle. It's a nice option to have an I can certainly see the appeal of it, but it isn't for me.

I like my wide freeways and roads to accommodate me with the other majority of the population who wants to live in the suburbs and I'll take my bike trails off the road where it's safer and more peaceful. To me the suburbs have more nature than urban areas do just because of how spread out and how more green space they have.

Suburbs are fine as long as they're constrained to otherwise useless land, include walkable/bikeable corridors, and aren't shackled by racist covenants (like many were and still are). Most suburbs aren't, however, new ones need to be stopped before they worsen a lot of the crises suffered by today's America. Obesity, racial inequality, income inequality, homelessness, environmental hazards, car-related deaths (America's major non-disease killer)...all can be tied to the stereotypical post-war suburb and the resistance to densifying areas.

Many people lived in very dense cities 100 years ago, like New York City... They were called tenements...

They had to send kids to summer camp to see nature.

Landscaped parks and a trees on the side of the road are NOT nature. What's wrong with a yard with some trees.

Humans have in instinctual desire to be in nature.

Because someone wants some land, albeit small suburban lot doesn't make them racist.( No I am not denying racist exclusionary laws-- as an aside, this was not the horrible racist Deep South, it was places like Levittown, NY and suburbs of progressive places like Chicago. People up North don't get a pass.)

Ironically some of the same people who want more people in dense urban neighborhoods and have contempt for suburban living turn around and bitch about gentrification when people move into old neighbohoods.

A nice urban neighborhood is wonderful. If I buy another house I would like to be able to walk places as much as possible. But everyone should not be forced to live in the city if they don't want to. And with the growth of telecommuing, non traditional hours and new types of jobs people don't have to live close to their jobs as in the past, so people will move where they want to live.

And part of the reason for sprawlnis the cities become unaffordable so people move farther out to get what they want





Z981

[jwolfer]

Lawns aren't natural for a large part of North America. At least upper nw doesn't suffer from water issues. I can't believe people in the SW are big on lawns. Much more water-efficient desert plants.

My point is that a lot of suburbs may not be urban, but their "nature" elements are a bit misleading at times. Many suburbs were forests (trees) or fields (grasslands) before being developed.

Amen on the lawns( and golf courses too)... Yards ideally should be native plants. Here in Florida the water management districts have PSA stuff about xeriscaping, using native plants.. avoiding invasive species.

We don't have soft grass here in Florida like up north, lawns have to be able to deal with heat, lots of rain in the summer, fast draining sandy soils, dry season winters.

And yards don't need to be green... I love a yard of pine straw, very low maintenance. The pine needles, keep grass and weeds from growing



Z981

[jakeroot]

Humans have in instinctual desire to be in nature.

That's debatable.

[Bruce]

Many people lived in very dense cities 100 years ago, like New York City... They were called tenements...

They had to send kids to summer camp to see nature.

Landscaped parks and a trees on the side of the road are NOT nature. What's wrong with a yard with some trees.

Humans have in instinctual desire to be in nature.

Because someone wants some land, albeit small suburban lot doesn't make them racist.( No I am not denying racist exclusionary laws-- as an aside, this was not the horrible racist Deep South, it was places like Levittown, NY and suburbs of progressive places like Chicago. People up North don't get a pass.)

Ironically some of the same people who want more people in dense urban neighborhoods and have contempt for suburban living turn around and bitch about gentrification when people move into old neighbohoods.

A nice urban neighborhood is wonderful. If I buy another house I would like to be able to walk places as much as possible. But everyone should not be forced to live in the city if they don't want to. And with the growth of telecommuing, non traditional hours and new types of jobs people don't have to live close to their jobs as in the past, so people will move where they want to live.

And part of the reason for sprawlnis the cities become unaffordable so people move farther out to get what they want

Let's take this point by point, because it's basically copied from the NIMBY playbook:

The modern apartments, condos, and urban living units (townhouses, duplexs, mother-in-law units, etc.) are far, far from the tenements. Even the derided "Apodments" that unapologetically cram as many people into a small complex are much, much larger than those. We have housing standards and agencies to enforce them, y'know?

Suburban kids still go to summer camp to see nature. Turns out maincured lawns and non-native trees don't really count. If a landscaped park (which can be enjoyed by the public and designed with the intent of bringing natural features into an artificial landscape) doesn't count, then neither does anything in the suburbs.

The whiners about gentrification are annoying and often wrong. The root cause is a lack of housing stock, which can be derived from a lack of attention by developers in the right areas. Many of these developers have their hands full building sprawl-burbs in god knows where, a few hours away.

The root cause of sprawl is lax regulation. Look at the tight greenbelts around European cities, which should have sprawled to cover the entire damn continent after the war. Instead, people recognized the issues with sprawl (pollution, environmental degradation, impacts on agricultural production, lack of mobility, fostering of social inequality) and put a stop to it. We only got around to it in the 1970s with the urban growth boundaries, but by then it was far too late.

[Duke87]

Suburbs are fine as long as they're constrained to otherwise useless land, include walkable/bikeable corridors, and aren't shackled by racist covenants (like many were and still are).

No arguments here. One of the biggest things I dislike about the bulk of suburbs is how they rely on developmental monoculture. Nothing but house after house after house on cul-de-sac after cul-de-sac, and it's impossible to walk anywhere meaningfully because there's nothing but other people's houses within walking distance. Why people think this is an ideal, I do not understand.

Most suburbs aren't, however, new ones need to be stopped before they worsen a lot of the crises suffered by today's America. Obesity, racial inequality, income inequality, homelessness, environmental hazards, car-related deaths (America's major non-disease killer)...all can be tied to the stereotypical post-war suburb and the resistance to densifying areas.

Sounds like the problem is specifically stereotypical post-war suburbs, not suburbs of other sorts.

I'd also be careful what stones you cast at suburbs over various issues. I can't really dispute the assertion that suburbs contribute to car-related deaths, that there is an inherent link to racial inequality, and that they are in some ways not ideal for the environment.

But, the link to obesity seems a bit dubious. It seems logical at a glance that living in a walkable area encourages more walking, but this isn't necessarily true to the degree you might think. Per the pedometer feature on my 3DS, I take more steps on an average trip to the grocery store (even though I drive there) than I do walking to the train station, and this is for a grocery store located in an urban area. A sprawling suburban grocery store that's more than twice the square footage will only increase that step count if you're shopping in a place like that regularly.

And walking is just one piece of the puzzle. I'm pretty sure I've been a lot less physically active overall since I left my parents' house in the suburbs and started living in apartments in the city. Know why? Because at my parents' house there was always all sorts of outdoor manual labor to be done. In the summer the lawn needed mowing. In the fall leaves needed raking. In the winter snow needed shoveling. When there was a storm brush needed clearing. Sometimes wood needed chopping. Since I have started living in an apartment, I no longer do any of these things anymore because they either do not need doing or are taken care of by other people hired by the company that owns the building I live in.

If anything it seems like urban apartment living is contributing to my obesity, and it will be good for my physical health when I live in a house again.

I'm also not getting how suburbs are contributing to income inequality or homelessness. They don't really do much to help either of these things, sure, but they're not causes of them. Meanwhile resistance to construction of new suburban development certainly is bad for these things because it means artificial constraint on the supply of housing and, in turn, higher costs of housing.

[oscar]

Suburbs are fine as long as they're constrained to otherwise useless land, include walkable/bikeable corridors, and aren't shackled by racist covenants (like many were and still are).

Those covenants have been unenforceable for decades, and so have no effect even if they've not been removed from deeds (which costs money, easier to just ignore them, especially when Federal housing laws require you to ignore them).

[kalvado]

I've been on hikes and around the national parks here, but that doesn't make my viewpoint less/more valid.

Of course any opinion has a value for the discussion.
However you're talking as a Mowgli who grew up in concrete jungle, and who didn't see any life outside those jungles nor realizes scale of what is going on to support that jungle. Agriculture, mining, industry... Do you know where your tap water is coming from, and what king of structures are used to bring and purify that water, and treat sewage? Where is the landfill your trash goes to?
High density doesn't mean reduced footprint. As an anecdote, I was really surprised to learn that certain reservoir - 4 hours drive to NYC - is part of NYC water supply system. Oh-oh..  Of course, no NYCer would consider influence of that reservoir on flooding in remote area as part of their impact on nature!
As for "what is natural" for human beings... Until pretty recently, relatively small farms and villages were the norm. Agriculture demanded low density, and bigger settlements were possible only to the extent they could be supported by excess agriculture product. Doesn't make such arrangement "natural", but that is part of what formed human society as a whole and describes environment where US grew up a a country.
Moreover, lower density allow for more localized resource use. No need for trash trains to travel hundreds miles, like NYC does. And THAT is a true sprawl of a big city.
Of course, there is some (probably pretty wide, but still) optimum in density. And if you think suburbs are too low in density, I equally think big cities are tumorous in their growth, and need to be curbed before they reach malignant stage (as many places actually did).