I don't think I've ever heard anyone say London density is bad. London _sprawl_ is bad, and one problem is how low density London actually is. More density would mean more housing available near the centre.

Because 1.5 hours is a lot of time out if only 24? Unless you live to work.

Eh - I see diminishing returns around smaller public-ish transit (!) commutes. The difference between a 15 minute commute and a 45 minute commute wasn't significant for me. I can still pay bills, answer personal mail, read a book, and talk to friends on my way to work. I imagine folks at the end of the tube line in London feel the same way.

Driving that commute though? Never.

For a while my commute was 1.5 hours each way. I found it intolerable and moved, but I have coworkers who commute as long or longer. London is starting to sound good.

Hahahahahahaha.

(Hello from the Bay Area)

London has a lot of trees actually. It's Europe's most tree covered capital city. It has more trees than people.

Suburbs around Central London don't have a super high population density, and are quite green. Many houses have a garden, and there are lots of parks.

Idk. London has amazing parks. Hampstead Heath being my favorite.