Then don't do that. You only need tons of parking and mandatory setbacks if you've designed the area for lots of cars going too fast. If you just don't, then suddenly a lot more ends up being in walking distance, and you don't need as much parking because more people are walking or biking.
Well of course this is what I prefer. But the other poster was saying they didn’t see why cities can’t be designed for cars AND for pedestrians. My point is that the policies put in place in almost all American cities for cars (mandatory parking requirements in new buildings, lots of street parking or parking lots, mandatory setbacks from the street for buildings, highway entrances, etc.) work directly against making a city dense enough to be able to easily walk to enough things that you don’t end up resorting to cars.
