(11-02-2015, 01:46 AM)mpd618 Wrote: Medium-density could be, perhaps, the equivalent of streets with two or three storey street walls - i.e. without the in-between spaces for cars and setbacks.
I think a greater density than in the past is needed to support transit, because it means supporting enough of it so that the transit is competitive with the automobile. But in terms of the history, my understanding is that these old subdivisions are far less dense than they were initially, with far fewer people living per house.
You're expressing preference for a form, not a particular level of density. Density is measured in people or jobs per unit of area. I think what most people understand to be medium-density can be achieved with single family homes or, more likely, a mix of uses which include single family homes.
Again, the neighbourhoods you're discussing did support transit in the past. There's a lot of other things (hidden subsidies to cars, for instance) that make transit non-competitive with transit. You make a good point about smaller families living in the same houses as did in the past, but I'm not sure how much less density that means. If you have two kids in a house instead of four, that might be problematic for the viability of the local school, but is it meaningfully less dense in terms of supporting transit, commercial, and so on?