I wonder what city will be the first to ban private cars and allow all streets to work this way.
That means that there will be fewer automobiles, fewer large roads, and less traffic, lending to more density and more maintainable infrastructure.
First you are going to make all the people in the cars nuts because they can't find parking, so they won't come.
Next all the people who find public transport tedious and slow won't come. (Yes, even the best public transport is not anywhere near as a good as a car that goes direct, and where you can actually leave your stuff in the car.)
Next all the people who hate living in dense places will leave because everything is all squished together, so you are again not designing for people.
How is that designing for people? It sounds more like you are designing for livestock.
Livestock who don't mind, or have no choice, about living in cramped quarters, and who don't mind wasting a lot of time.
No thank you, this is not the kind of city I want.
* When public transport is relied on by enough people, it becomes reliable. When it is a first class citizen, it becomes reliable. Consider Istanbul, a city whose core cannot accomodate as many cars as people would like to drive. However, busses are a first class citizen and come regularly. In rush hour, they have a dedicated bus lane for the most important route on the European side and there is literally no wait. In off-peak times like 2am, the max wait is 10 minutes.
* That's fine, you don't prefer living in density. As such, you should pay for the privilege. You should pay for the extra infrastructure needed to maintain your lifestyle.
Anything less is fiscally irresponsible. In some places, that's fine. However, we are seeing towns and cities drowning under the debt of infrastructure maintenance. Ever heard your city's citizens complain about potholes? Almost every city has the problem because the city is maintaining too many large roads.
Now, we certainly need to maintain rural areas for many reasons, and perhaps that's the right living area for you. However, when you come to town, it won't be custom fit for your vehicle.
I should also clarify that removing off-street parking isn't the first step - it's much closer to the last step. First is open on-street parking. Then resident + metered parking. Then as density increases, adding more permanent transit on the right streets at the expense of those parking spots. Off-street parking is the last to go, but it goes strategically.
The US has a shocking amount of uniformity in it's building styles, because most people don't want to live in the dense environment that is advocated in the article.
I wish the people that didn't want to live in this kind of environment wouldn't simultaneously oppose it. Let it be built, let people move there who want to move there.
So, when you say "dense cities already exist", that group hears "your concerns are invalid/useless".
Conversely, "making cities harder to get around when not on foot" also means "making cities easier to get around if you don't own a car".
Individuals who live in cities and don't have a car are comfortable with this. Or, they live in cities and a car is not their dominant method of travel.
This whole issue is extremely complex, and not amenable to a simple solution, like "making cities easier to get around on foot" or "make it easier to drive around a city".
Jane Jacobs's "Death And Life of Great American Cities" is a fantastic (and beautifully written) exposé of the topic. Believe it or not, I finished the book this morning.
Maybe they will come, but won't bring their car?
Many towns in Europe that have public squares and donkey sized streets ban private cars in their historic cores (or limit them to special permits).