These things always devolve into a shouting match between the planners and people who value solitude or a big yard. I agree with the anti-density folks on one t

These things always devolve into a shouting match between the planners and people who value solitude or a big yard. I agree with the anti-density folks on one thing: big yards are awesome, larger houses are very useful, and I want my kids to feel safe on my street, and I find it hilarious that planners have so little humility--they curse the foolishness of the previous generation of planners, who overlooked some very important details, and then proceed to lay out their broad-brushed scheme for utopia. What could possibly go wrong? But I'm convinced of the following: driving has huge costs that are not internalized as part of the decision-making process about whether to drive somewhere or not. E.g.: - driving presents a large risk to pedestrians or bicyclists nearby - driving requires a large amount of incredibly expensive infrastructure to be custom-built to support it - driving down a street makes that street a less pleasant place to be, in general, due to noise, perceived risk, etc. - driving causes congestion, which delays other drivers - pollution and environmental costs So if people actually paid the full cost of their trips, they'd probably drive less, and would be much less likely to plan their lives in ways that require large amounts of driving. For some people, the benefits would be worth the costs, and more power to them--but I shouldn't have to subsidize that choice. I wish the debate could be less about what type of lifestyle we prefer, and more about how to fairly distribute the costs of our choices.