> The US use a zoning systems almost to the exclusion of any form of planning system, and pretty simple zoning systems at that. As a general rule the zoning systems simply don't allow mix used zones, you simply can't build a shop or business in a residential area. As a consequence you force a design where shops and homes must be kept physically separated, and usually with a significant distance between them.

Yes, this is true. But remember that these rules are not the same everywhere, and they are not imposed nationally. Cities and towns are largely free to choose their own zoning laws. In the 50s and 60s they overwhelmingly voted to change them to allow suburban areas, and a huge percentage of the population moved to those areas. They did this because _they wanted to live in a suburban environment_. They weren’t forced into it.

>> The majority of people in America prefer suburbs precisely because it maximizes the type of neighborhood that they want and choose to live in.

> What are you basing this on? Just because it dominant doesn't mean people want. Stupidly expensive healthcare bills are dominant in the US, do you think people want that?

Don’t be ridiculous; of course nobody voted for higher medical bills. During the war, employers were largely prohibited from raising salaries to attract employees, so they had to resort to perks like medical insurance instead. After the war the practice became nearly universal. Higher prices for medical services was an _unintended consequence_ of that change.

Meanwhile people voted for suburban zoning _because they wanted it_. It wasn’t an unintended consequence, it was the _intended_ consequence.

> Where mixed used developments exist in the US, demand far outstrips supply, resulting in crazy high house prices.

This is true today, but remember that we are talking about nearly 80 years of change here since the war. In the 80s and 90s demand for mixed–use development was super low. People had moved out of urban areas by the tens of millions, and very few wanted to move back. _Today_ there is much more interest, as generational changes kick in.

My Grandfather on my father’s side came back from the Pacific theater, purchased a farm, and raised 9 children. This was not for lack of skill or education either; he wanted peace above all else. After a couple of decades or so he sold the farm and moved to a suburban area in a small town, where he took a job as an electrical engineer at a hydroelectric power plant.

To house all of the children he raised the new house by a whole story, dug out a basement below it (the house was on a hill, so that eliminated about half of the digging), then built a whole bunch of bedrooms down there plus a really nice workbench.

His children (my Aunts and Uncles), had a lot more interest in travel and adventure than he did (having gotten his fill during the war), but they all lived in quiet suburban areas, not urban ones. Among the many many grandchildren there are some who live in bustling cities with nightlife, but not all of them.

>> And you are the one that judges a suburb to be “empty”, and the parking lots to be “soulless”. That is just your opinion; not everyone shares it

> True, it's an opinion. But are you honestly trying to argue that Americans find parking lots soulful?

Seriously? Are you deliberately misreading what I wrote? I said that most people _don’t care_ about parking lots, and I meant it. A parking lot is neither a positive nor a negative aspect of life; it's just a place you spend a few minutes at before and after you do your weekly grocery shopping. The rest of the time it never enters people’s thoughts. Home is the important place that people think about; parking lots don’t matter.