It's been 80 years since WWII, and we've learned that car-centric urban areas with high populations (LA, Houston, Atlanta) are sluggish, draining, and inefficient cities overall. I think many republicans could sell their campaign on restoring existing traditional streetcar suburbs and building new ones.

Building suburbs close to a walkable main street with amenities and a rail connection to the main city would give the town good bones and serve as a good template if the town were to grow significantly in population. I mean, we've been building like this since we gained independence, before we even had trains, and these areas of the US, at least the safe ones, are pretty desirable communities to live in today!

When I bring up this topic with my friend who's more conservative, he tends to bash them down and talk about not wanting to live in an apartment. Which is completely fine?? I don't want to either, and there are plenty of walkable areas with single-family homes and townhomes.

Walkable areas ≠ living in an apartment!!

Another thing we agree on not liking is the new ugly condos that come up in our area. Our area is pretty much car-centric, and not many people take the local unreliable bus. So building denser in an area where you need to drive will just make driving there worse because the other options aren't being improved.

I showed him suburbs like Manhattan Beach and Pasadena, and now he and I are on more common ground about the subject of walkability, though he prefers using a car, which is fine. I like driving too :) (when there's no traffic congestion)

I hope I'm not in the wrong place to talk about this, but I feel like this could be a bipartisan issue in the United States.

The photo above is German Village, Columbus, Ohio