My reply is a direct paraphrase of the article’s arguments. Did we read the same article in its entirety? > Car traffic shares its roads with buses, often bicy

My reply is a direct paraphrase of the article’s arguments. Did we read the same article in its entirety? > Car traffic shares its roads with buses, often bicycles. Not in the scenario argued for by the article. > And the distances you need to cover don't get shorter if you remove roads or parking spaces. Two things the article goes to great pains to make clear—the distances you need to cover are a direct result of horrible parking policy, and the distances become irrelevant as more space is given to denser development and increased public transport options with dedicated space. > What assumptions does your "theory" base this claim on? That newly built houses will quickly fill with people working nearby? Perhaps they just like their small houses on the hills of LA and don't want to move to the busy center of the city. All of the assumptions and data presented and explained at length in the article. That newly built housing popping up in the place of vast, sprawling parkings areas would fill with new tenants in Los Angeles does not strike me as an outlandish conclusion. Have you lived there? Yes, some people like living in the surrounding areas—but that’s somewhat forced by limited housing supply and god-awful traffic. I don’t think I’m the only person born and raised in LA who would have jumped at the chance to be right in the busy city center, especially while younger. Most of my remaining family members in the area would still do it. The rest moved away after 30+ years of being fed up with the gridlock. City centers are vibrant, awesome places. Lots of people would love to live close to work and play, and leave all the driving for when they’re ready to get out of the city.