Stating that “buildings rising from 5 to 12 stories can create even higher density” is right on…but runs counter to zoning in all but the most central neighborhoods of American cities, including Chicago. So, if a developer must fight for a variance, it makes much more sense to do so for a megaproject than for a mid-rise.

Unfortunately, McMahon doesn’t address the real problem in urban development.

Yet there are also places where we should arguably not be seeking similar high-rise density. New Orleans’s French Quarter is a great example. A historic neighborhood like San Francisco’s North Beach may be another.

Part of the problem, though, is that planners have become so constrained in terms of where even three or four story buildings are permitted, that sometimes it is all but necessary to put high-rises in certain strategic locations. It would be great if everywhere within 0.5-mile of a transit station could be zoned for 4–6 story buildings, but this is simply not realistic. Until more neighborhoods welcome low-rise density into their midst, strategic high-rise density will remain an important tool for achieving desired transit and sustainability outcomes.

But more to the point of the article it the false choice of late 20th Century development between sprawl and urban. The sweet spot is in between. The low-rise, dense, walkable districts that McMahon describes have weathered the real estate storm remarkably well. In addition, consumer sentiment (RCLCO) suggest that there is a high affinity for these types of places. Thus the market has spoken in their favor. The vexing question is why haven’t developers and builder responded?

And Paris has higher density than NYC, but with almost no buildings taller than 6 stories.

You’re kidding, right?

Young people want to live in cities because cities are far superior. They have a choice between suburbs like those in which they grew up, spending hours a day in a car while mom schlepped one sibling to gymnastics, later another to Girl Scouts, to the grocery store (in fact, anywhere that one needed to go, since it was not possible to walk or bike anywhere), or they can live in a city where there are restaurants, clubs, bars, bakeries, yoga studios and gyms, art museums, shops — all within an easy walk or bike. Getting to work in cities is also simple, using transit, walking or biking, without having to worry that gas is topping $4.50 per gallon. Streets are safe because there are so many other people using them, and residents keep an eye out for those passing by. Schools are improving dramatically, with the added plus of students enjoying the benefits of learning in a culturally diverse environment.

Your comment about transit is bafflling — no transit pays for itself out of the farebox, which makes sense because it is a public benefit. In addition, the phenomenal growth of car sharing makes it possible for city residents to easily access a car when they need it, without having to worry about car payments, insurance or the cost of parking. Since young people are more interested in hanging out in “third places”, they are willing to trade off more space for the convenience and desirability of living in the city. College graduates are 91% more likely to live in a city or a close-in suburb, NOT because anyone is forcing them, but because they recognize the value of living in lively, vibrant places.
Try it sometime….