Should Los Angeles City ban the construction of new single-family houses?

Let's face it: no big city can match the sprawl of Los Angeles, no big city is as car-dependent as Los Angeles, no big city needs as many freeways as Los Angeles... and no big city has as many single-family houses as Los Angeles.





Go to New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Tokyo, Hong Kong, London, Paris... you'll find greater use of public transport, more places within walking distance, fewer freeways in the downtown area, and more people living in apartments.





The way Los Angeles has developed is simply ridiculous. It's awfully inconvenient and environmentally unfriendly because there are 10 million people who MUST drive to get anywhere.





Denser cities are less car-dependent. A recent article in Time magazine stated that on a per-person basis, New York City is one of the most energy-efficient cities in the US. Hong Kong's urban areas are perhaps the world's densest, but that leaves 70% of the territory for forest and vegetation.|||No, I think not. Rather than mess with the soul of Los Angeles, smart planning these days works WITH it. We are gradually densifying, but we live in a market economy. As in any city, there are those who can afford to build single family residences, and there always will be. There are ways to control what happens, through zoning, limiting water and sewer connections and the cost of these, but as a practical matter, a downright ban is not in the cards.|||Okay, then. Yes. What's the downside? RE prices and apartment buildings will climb to ridiculous levels?|||First of all, New York, Tokyo and London are all on islands, so they can't sprawl like LA; and SF, Chicago and HK are sprawling, but just in a different way. What's ridiculous is how you can't find a house in LA proper that's either under $600K or not in a gang infested area. Once you deal with those problems, people would love to live closer. No one likes to commute for hours on a daily basis.|||No, thats the point of living in LA. You could live like with privacy. However, they should require each house to be enerdy efficent. LA is not as crowded as people say it is.|||What if I dont want to live on the 30th floor with hundreds of other people in one cramped apartment building? Dont forget we have earthquakes here and it is very expensive to build up towards the sky...If our schools are already crowded then how much more crowded would they be by adding hundreds of apartment buildings??It also depends on when you travel here in LA, sometimes the roads are clear and other times there is traffic...Its also to bad that people in NYC cant just jump into their cars and go to the beach or to the mountains..They seem to be dependent on public transportation..Now that is no way to live..|||What actually is need is called urban planning not house banning. Because of lack of urban planning we are in a mess. Rather than ban building, focus should be on developing easy to use rapid transit.|||With you in spirit but what would that ban solve--- the city is almost totally built out right now...so that wouldn't get you very far..I love cities with good subways, very cool, but L.A.'s attractions are pretty spread out...from the beaches, to Hollywood, to Griffith Park, to Malibu, to Big Bear. I favor taxing gasoline or something to pay for nearly free Public transit systems...especially in the basin...some incentive to get people out of their cars a little bit....My solution is free margaritas on the bus home...They would have to be really cool super luxury buses...|||Single family homes comprise the major tax base upon which most governmental jurisdictions survive. Without the revenue derived from single family home property taxes, all other taxes %26amp; fees would have to rise dramatically to cover the short fall. There is no way they will ever ban single family homes.