New Cities
Look to how Tokyo does things. A few takeaways:<p>- mixed use zoning: reduce requirement for long trips by mixing many compatible types of commercial with residential, and remove single housing type developments. Also, allow many smaller apartment complexes mixed with single family houses, instead of segregating housing types.<p>- street design: No more hierarchical&#x2F;dendritic street layouts. That is, no more dead-end streets, which lead to collectors, which lead to arterials - you&#x27;re bottlenecking a huge population through a very small, fast, and unsafe road system. Instead, make the streets highly connected, and narrower to encourage slower but steadier car traffic, and blocks shorter. Porous streets networks can route around bottlenecks and can have many more concurrent cars than even crazy-huge Texas-style freeways.<p>- no big street setback requirements: encourage density by removing crazy suburban-style setbacks.<p>Edit: I wanted to make a plug for form-based zoning, which is zoning where the form (building type) is zoned, not its use. This doesn&#x27;t necessarily refer to its <i>style</i> (Neoclassical, Modernist, etc) but how it interacts with the surrounding buildings on the street. E.g. buildings above a certain size might not be allowed in an area, and not be allowed to take more than N number of yards of street frontage. Setbacks of a certain size might be prohibited, or allowed. This allows of a reasonable number of mixed uses like restaurants, shops, and other day to day commercial uses to coexist with residential. This does not mean that heavy&#x2F;noxious industry can be built up there. This was the error the Euclid v. Ambler decision made 100 years ago: they threw the baby out with the bathwater by restricting zoning by type; there is not a small amount of racism that came with Euclidean&#x2F;exclusive zoning, e.g. removing a formerly viable way for immigrants to start a business with a house above (a la Bob&#x27;s Burgers) and thereby increasing the barrier for success.