It's not like dense, mixed-use areas don't exist in the US -- NYC being the most obvious example. They're just uncommon because regulations force them to be uncommon. Where they do exist they work fine.
The problem being that there is more demand for that kind of high density living than there is existing supply. Hence the desire to create more.
By contrast, if you want to live in a detached single family home, there are plenty on offer around Houston or Portland or dozens of other cities that already have a lower population density and thus less pressure for new high density housing.
The result of local dominant zoning is rampant NIMBYism, with unsustainable and anti-environmental suburban sprawl, people unable to afford rent in the areas with the most good jobs, and widespread economic segregation.
The system is working for some definition of working, but not terribly well.
There's a reason we have governments at a higher level than neighborhoods and cities. Not every decision makes sense there.
We've tried city level zoning, the result is that economically booming areas fight new residents, drastically raising rents while preventing others from joining in in the economic success. It's a disaster, just look at the bay area.
Or look at the cost of sprawl in how much nature we've cut down and our per capita energy usage. What part of that looks good to you?
If you zoom in too far, people get selfish and you hit externalities. Zoning isn't unique, sometimes you need more coordination for things to work.
Free for all zoning would be letting the people who actually own particular properties have the final say.
/s/actually live there/are upper-middle-class, white, and born at the right time/
Like, this is very explicit in the article for this thread even, and somehow it still comes up.
Anyway if you look in the article it talks about how you still exclude things from residential areas based on level of nuisance. Presumably a compressor station could qualify.
Well yes, of course that's true. But more people also means more taxes to fund those services.
https://www.ci.lancaster.ma.us/sites/lancasterma/files/uploa...
It's a smallish rural town. There is police, fire, library, water, DPW, etc. but we don't even have services like trash collection which are private. Schools are significant.
It's understandable that people want their neighborhood to stay similar to when they bought in. It's understandable that people who drive everywhere don't want more traffic or competition for parking. It's understandable that rich people don't want poorer, less academically accomplished families at their schools.
But just because the reasons are understandable, doesn't mean they're good, or that they outweigh the bad. Zoning in the US has a number of hugely negative effects, and it desperately needs reformation.