I disagree with pretty much every conclusion made by the author, and yet agree that there is some truth there as well. The bottom line is that all of this subu

I disagree with pretty much every conclusion made by the author, and yet agree that there is some truth there as well. The bottom line is that all of this suburban sprawl is a result of the extra land available in the U.S. combined with the automobile and combined with the growing middle class. The lack of municipal support for public transport is the other biggy. You can't build dense if everyone has to have a car to get around, and if the best you can do is a mediocre bus service that caters to the old and poor, you're not going to choose to build dense. t may not have been the best idea long term, but the choice for developers at the time wasn't "build a nice Euro model town square" vs. "Build a sprawling suburban mess". It was "build in this empty field" or "pay alot more money to tear down these old buildings and put up apartments to replace them". And the biggest money to be made wasn't in building up. The only good news is that mostly people have gotten to the point where they're not willing to travel any further out, and so more new development is happening by building up instead.