One problem we face right now is that America was built on this &quot;urban&quot; vs &quot;suburban&quot; planning mindset. In the 60&#x27;s to the 90&#x27;s the city equated overcrowding and crime, the suburbs equaled privacy and freedom. Today we see things quite a bit differently, but it&#x27;s still city vs suburbs - you walk, bike to work and see your neighbors regularly - or - live your life in the self-imposed isolation of cars and spaced out tract homes.<p>I wish we could get over this idea that it has to be one way or the other. Cities don&#x27;t have to be densely stuffed with a grid of monstrous mixed use high rises to be a city. Suburbs don&#x27;t have to zone stores a million miles from housing to be a suburb. Both places can share development patterns and still give people what they want. There&#x27;s a middle ground that can be found here, but municipal planners and real estate developers seem to be fixated on these narrow visions of growth.<p>What&#x27;s wrong with tearing up a few office parking lots to add a few shops and houses? What&#x27;s wrong with building a few 4 floor walk-up apartment buildings instead of yet another block-sized, doorman-guarded fortress?<p>Hopefully the next century of urban development in America is spent at least partly figuring out how to blend these environments together better.