The rest of this century is dedicated to undoing the zoning practices of a certain generation.
It is important to be very clear about this because the HN crowd seems to have a massive over-representation of people who like dense living arrangements: the vast majority of Americans want to live in a detached home that they own, and they want to transport themselves in cars that they own. They don't want to live in apartments, they don't want to rent, and they don't like mass transit. There are indeed some Americans who want to live in places like Manhattan, but they are a small minority. A large majority of the Americans who currently live in apartments only do so because they cannot afford a detached home.
It's not a choice between suburbia and Manhattan. It's a choice between exclusionary, backwards suburban zoning (which is subsidized by denser development due to the increased cost of utilities for sprawling development), and literally any more sane option. Let people build duplexes, corner stores, local markets, and get rid of the cul de sacs. That's literally the core of the "density" people are talking about. Not Manhattan style high rises.
Saying that people (really any group, but millenials here) prefer suburbia because that's what you see them currently buying on the housing market, is ignoring the fact that the available housing stock probably doesn't match up to their preferences! Plenty of people are buying the "lesser of two evils" rather than their dream home. Plenty of people would choose something within walking distance of a decent park and grocery, if they had that option. But America, despite being built on the train and the pedestrian, has been rebuilt on the automobile and the cul-de-sac with single family home zoning. So people are buying what is available, even if it's not what they want.
If you doubt what I'm saying, check the prices of homes in prewar "streetcar suburbs" which are denser, but still have small yards, detached houses, and yet are near small commercial uses too. Plenty of people want to buy these and the prices have skyrocketed: it's illegal to build them now, so the supply is limited.
That makes logical sense yet in the same post you propose to “get rid of the cul-de-sacs” which is a type of land use that many people genuinely prefer, even if you don’t.
It's kind of funny that your reaction to my comment is "he wants to take away the cul-de-sac" when all I'm asking is if we can get zoning for a decent alternative. I'm not asking to replace all the suburbs with this style of zoning, but especially as you get to areas with high unmet housing demand, zoning needs to be reconsidered.
Even just the european solution of mixing rowhouses and 3-5 story apartment buildings would fix that. In fact, it would significantly increase density and reduce cost, in turn reducing commute times for many people.
Even an apartment can be built well enough that you don't have to worry about sharing walls with neighbors. My neighbor is regularly watching movies at THX reference volume, and so am I, and neither of us can hear each others' audio.
With land value as high as it is in LA, it's worth spending money on improving the quality of construction, so people can share walls with their neighbors without any of the negatives usually associated with it.
It’s not uncommon to read a comment so detached from economic reality but this is today’s winner. In fact causing the problem it intends to solve.
So, be honest and just compare suburban sprawl against, well, normal development where people can build town houses, duplexes, small apartment buildings, and of course small stores and restaurants. THAT is the density that the majority of people are talking about. Not high rises in ultra dense urban cores. I think more Americans than you think would like to be walking distance from a decent grocery store, bar, and breakfast place. I enjoy it!