> If you want to talk about closing schools, because there aren't children for them... then great! Build new high density where the school used to be. Build a school into the building, put a subway under the school with a connecting mall.

You realize the same people in those neighbourhoods fight things like this for the exact same reasons? These people (much like London/Paris) are externalizing housing costs onto others. Now those people in far out areas need enormous infrastructure to move them to work, etc.

> Then at least the surrounding neighborhood that has been paying 70 years of taxes doesn't have to deal with the extra traffic/parking of the new construction. Maybe they'll even enjoy the new mall, and foot traffic will help support existing commercial infrastructure.

(In Toronto at least) the lower density areas are subsidized by the higher density areas (much of which is also commercial). It costs more per capita to lay sewer, pave roads, police, etc these SFH areas. Also, they would fight the same conversions of schools in their neighbourhoods for the same traffic/shadows/etc reasons. And you can't economically build a subway to a smallish "dense" footprint in a former school ground, and even if you could you'd be recreating the same "ultra dense" problems that Toronto already has.

Look at this image: http://images.unoapp.com/boxdata/asset52207/images/4800Yonge...

There is essentially only expensive SFH and relatively expensive to build high rises with almost nothing in between. You're saying that to protect (and continue to subsidize) a bunch of people's lifestyles that new residents should only be expanded into the outskirts of urban zones?