If there is one thing we do not lack in this country it is land. We spread and develop land at extraordinary rates, spreading our influence to all ends of this nation. We however also spread and increase our pollution in the same fashion. We work in the cities and live in the burbs, traveling long distances in toxic fume choking automobiles and then we have to park on giant blacktop islands that radiate heat back into our environment.

My argument is for increased urban residential density. The suburb allows the urbanite to be close to the action but have the idyllic setting of land and wealth. This paradigm is archaic in our new setting. Density and proximity of amenities will become the catch phrases of development. No longer will tract homes and stick built single family monstrosities be the norm. We will come together and live in communities again, with interaction and pedestrian flows.

The next time you consider a move, consider moving into a city, into a densely populated area with multiple amenities in walking distance.

I get what you are saying. More people in one place means less space taken up overall. Don't these same places also have a preponderance of crime and other unattractive characteristics? Can you really think that people will voluntarily abandon the trends of the past to be more green? I understand and I am not saying you are wrong, it just seems unlikely to work.

I am not saying this is a perfect actionable theory... Wait, it is a theory. There are so many aspects of life that need to change in order for truly sustainable lives to become the norm. Some deal with what we live in, some with where and what we do for work. Others deal with education while some are purely socio-economic. I myself focus on the built environment and how people define home and the residence. Its where my expertise lies and while I would love the save the world, I can only help where my strengths lie.