Related, interesting quote from someone talking to Jane Jacobs: http://www.citylab.com/design/2016/05/happy-100th-birthday-j...
New, high-rise public housing surrounded by pretty but functionless lawns had erased the formerly dense mix of retail, institutional and residential uses. She learned about what was lost from settlement house workers and tenants.
As one resident told her: “Nobody cared what we wanted when they built this place. They threw our houses down and pushed us here and pushed our friends somewhere else. We don’t have a place around here to get a cup of coffee or a newspaper even... But the big men come and look at that grass and say, ‘Isn’t it wonderful! Now the poor have everything.’”
Due to the collapse of industry round here, deprivation and crime shot through the roof (to the point Latvia recommended its citizens not visit this city in particular).
The high rises have become synonymous with that crime and deprivation. No one wants them at their back yard because of who typically lives in them, not because of the aesthetics.
In fact, they have recently had a makeover and now look great. Unfortunately, the same people still live there.
I moved south, the weather and opportunities are better. But then I probably fall into most of the boxes outlined in the article.
However, the planning laws in the UK put brakes on growth down here. Having been in in Tokyo and London it's obvious why accommodation is cheaper (by about 50% [1]) in Japan than the UK: they build up and dense.
I think the argument of the article is more about the character of the places people move _to_ rather than the places they move _from_. Where cities are very expensive, it's too hard to get a toehold in the economy as someone new to the area/just starting out.
We need to get over the mistakes of the 50s and 60s and accept that if we want affordable housing for the masses we need higher, denser accommodation.
Unfortunately what we get is low density out-of-town box houses that aren't connected to any infrastructure. If we get much at all. Where there is development in the cities, it seems to be too little to shift prices.
[1] http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?coun...
In the US people go to the park to interact with people, and go home to have solitude [hopefully with nature in their backyard, but even if not they want a quiet apartment without lots of people near them, or at least the illusion of it].
Some people prefer the US way, some the European way. But you have to build the city to match what people want.
The ugly urban cities are a result of a mismatch.
The US is a car-centric culture that is fueled by (relatively) cheap gasoline (energy prices).
Take for instance shopping malls. Shopping malls in Asia (usually in urban centers) build up vertically while in the United States they are build out horizontally with acres and acres of parking spaces.
Some of the best US cities have European-like features (NYC with Central Park and its other parks like Union Square, Tompkins Square, traffic shut down on some streets or at least seating that takes up part of the street).
Careful with calling it "best". Not everyone likes that kind of thing in a city.
I don't. I hate those types of cities, I feel very stressed and oppressed ("squished" if you get what I mean) when I go to cities designed in that way. I can handle it for a visit, but I would never want to live there.
Different people like different things, that's why we have a variety of cities in the US, you can live in a place that matches what you like. But don't call it "best" just because it happens to be what you like.
Ironically, part of the blame lies with zoning. Zoning restricts housing supply, thus increasing housing prices and making securing a political deal expensive. When you get one, you want to make the most of it. That means lots of expensive apartments.
"Expensive" means luxury. "Lots of" means space maximimisation. (Since the political process has constrained supply, you need not worry about someone competing on design - availability is almost enough by itself.)
This is illustrated in a recent New York Times article, where several architectural features of older buildings either directly violate modern zoning laws or would be done away given as a side effect of them: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-p...
Other people can be a source of comfort, education, assistance and enrichment. But, other people can also prove to be a great source of annoyance, stress, competition, and fear.
Maybe an even more important trick than making things attractive in shared urban spaces is making all the new arrivals get along with and trust the existing people in the city, and vice versa.
But it doesn't look like the law gives cities what they need to ensure such an outcome. In order to promote urban productivity and tranquility in a nation where people are free to settle anywhere, there's a case to be made for giving local communities more, not less, control.