A list of changes to make it easier to build beautiful and walkable places

Regulation, Red Tape, and Feasibility

• Many readers are shocked by how many separate rules block walkable, “European-style” urbanism, especially in the US/California.
• Some find the list “daunting” and politically unrealistic; others counter that many top items have already been implemented in NYC, LA, Nashville, Austin, etc.
• Several note that the list itself is a useful way to start a public dialogue and reveal invisible constraints (setbacks, parking minimums, height limits, etc.).
• A recurring theme: most items are removing regulations rather than adding new ones, often with no direct fiscal cost.

Developers, Markets, and Regulation

• Debate over “greedy developers”: one side argues this is an unserious trope; another cites fraud and failed projects to justify skepticism.
• One camp: loosen regulations, let developers build more, and prices will eventually fall (citing Austin and long-term underbuilding).
• Counter-camp: “market forces” stop building when prices fall; real affordability needs government-funded/social housing and cost-plus models.
• Further pushback: US housing is deeply financialized; large price drops could destabilize many households and institutions.

Quality Standards vs Affordability

• Example tension: soundproofing in multifamily/row houses. Some want strict noise and fire standards; others argue every mandate raises costs and prices out poorer households.
• Middle ground suggestions include mandatory disclosure/testing of noise performance rather than blanket bans on “lower-quality” units.

Public Safety, Crime, and Disorder

• One viewpoint: walkability is pointless without fixing what’s seen as a “dramatic decline” in public safety (homelessness, public drug use, visible disorder).
• Others respond with crime statistics showing long-term declines since the 1990s, arguing fear is driven by visibility of poverty and media focus on a few neighborhoods.
• Distinction emerges between crime vs disorder: some concede crime is down but feel day-to-day public environments have become less pleasant.

Homelessness, Drugs, and Punishment

• Hardline position: walkability is meaningless unless cities remove drug users, homeless people, litterers, vandals—primarily through punishment.
• Opposing view: punitive cycling between jail and encampments fails; root causes include unaffordable housing near jobs and lack of services.
• Another camp insists drugs and untreated mental illness are the primary drivers of street homelessness, not housing costs alone; without addressing addiction, other interventions are seen as futile.

Cars, Traffic, and Safety

• Several argue cars are the dominant public-safety threat (tens of thousands of deaths), but are culturally normalized while homeless people are treated as the main danger.
• Others highlight specific corridors where reducing car lanes for “walkability” feels dangerous due to heavy regional traffic and emergency access needs.
• Some emphasize design fixes (roundabouts, wider and better-lit sidewalks/bike paths) and note that car congestion itself slows emergency vehicles; dedicated bus/bike/emergency lanes are suggested.

Car-Free Visions, E‑bikes, and Behavior

• Some dream of car-free districts where people walk, bike, or use mobility scooters; others see past denials of “we’re not coming for your cars” as political bait-and-switch.
• E-bikes are praised but also criticized: “unlocked” high-speed models behave like small motorcycles on bike paths, creating new safety problems amid weak enforcement.
• Several note that behavior and social norms matter as much as vehicle type: inconsiderate riding/driving stresses others regardless of mode.

Politics, NIMBYism, and Implementation

• Walkable neighborhoods are in high demand and expensive, yet locals often oppose change that would make more such areas, especially near them.
• Commenters note that those who love walkability may still object when a neighbor’s lot is upzoned or fully built out.
• Some stress that entrenched interests (drivers, existing homeowners, city staff tied to regulation) make reforms politically difficult, even when fiscally cheap.

International Comparisons and Lived Experience

• Multiple references to Dutch, Norwegian, Finnish, German, and Eastern European cities: quiet centers, heavy bike use, frequent small grocery trips, and integrated bike/foot paths.
• People who have lived in walkable areas say it’s hard to go back to car-dependent life; others strongly prefer large private property over urban convenience.
• Several argue that “nice places to be” (clean, safe-feeling, socially cohesive) are what ultimately make walkability succeed; zoning and transit then follow demand.