I've lived in a number of cities across three continents and I tend to think that the idea of a "car-free" city is a quintessentially North American overreaction to a quintessentially North American problem.

Like yes Wired we know that the suburb and the American commute have some serious downsides and the US leaned way too much into this model during a period of high population growth.

However it's not like other approaches to urban planning have no downsides. I personally like the Asian model of high density and mixed use zoning but here are some realities that come with it: noise, more pollution, more construction, less space, commercial usage pushing up land values etc.

There is no one size fits all so I tend to think most US cities would benefit from just dialing back the size of some of the suburban wastelands out there, keeping density low to medium and re-zoning to allow certain less intrusive types of businesses. One compact urban core, a low to medium density mixed use ring and a suburban fringe perhaps. Yes people are still going to need to cars in this city but a lot of commutes, shopping trips etc. are likely to get shorter.

For somewhere like San Francisco there's probably a great argument for the type of development you see in Taipei or Tokyo where you lean heavily into commuter rail and the train stations become big multi-use complexes and the center(s) of your city. But this is a huge reorganization of people's lives and existing property development that there's going to be a lot of pushback against and it's not all going to be nimbyism.