No, it is not. First of all, those areas are already residential. Meanwhile, nearby malls sit with boarded-up anchor stores and vast parking lots growing weeds. Those tracts have already suffered the costs of "density:" trees wiped out, the ground paved over with asphalt and unable to absorb water, and "heat islands" exacerbated. Plus they already have ingress & egress routes.
After that there are the disused and blighted former commercial or light-industrial areas. See the above.
After that there are large traffic conduits that are near SFH neighborhoods but underutilized and underdeveloped. Want to get rid of some shitty strip mall and build mixed-use structures instead? Go for it!
And beyond all that: "Downtowns" are rarely "full." Downtown L.A., for example. Density is available for those who want it. There's no excuse for trying to force it on those who specifically chose something different. They didn't demand that apartments be wiped out to create yards and houses; they moved to an area set up that way.
One approach to the "housing crisis" is to tax the shit out of empty rental properties.
After that there are the disused and blighted former commercial or light-industrial areas. See the above.
After that there are large traffic conduits that are near SFH neighborhoods but underutilized and underdeveloped. Want to get rid of some shitty strip mall and build mixed-use structures instead? Go for it!
And beyond all that: "Downtowns" are rarely "full." Downtown L.A., for example. Density is available for those who want it. There's no excuse for trying to force it on those who specifically chose something different. They didn't demand that apartments be wiped out to create yards and houses; they moved to an area set up that way.
One approach to the "housing crisis" is to tax the shit out of empty rental properties.