I generally agree with the article's main thrusts (city living is more "efficient", better/more sustainable infrastructure), but this is a very one-sided view.

I generally agree with the article's main thrusts (city living is more "efficient", better/more sustainable infrastructure), but this is a very one-sided view. Sure, cities are more "efficient". They're also more dysfunctional. What you gain in infrastructure use intensity, you give right back to machine politics, failing school systems, outright embezzlement/theft of funds, huge pension problems, entrenched big-city unions, and bad policing. Just watch The Wire if you want to see what it's like. I live in Oakland, CA, which has had, I think 3 or 4 police chiefs, in the past 3 years. Perhaps there's some kind of middle ground. A place that's not some spread-out suburbia where "going into town" is a thing, but not quite SF/NYC-level government problems where building a subway comes at a price of 3.5 BILLION DOLLARS PER MILE. [1] Maybe a city of 1 million is about the right size. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-...