> all the jobs are, ironically, in places that really don't want to grow That's a little misleading. True, SF and Seattle have zoning laws which are a signific

> all the jobs are, ironically, in places that really don't want to grow That's a little misleading. True, SF and Seattle have zoning laws which are a significant part of the reason for housing unaffordability (e.g. 75% of Seattle is zoned for single family dwellings, prohibiting even short townhouses), but it's likely that many of the smaller cities in the article either do have such zoning laws already or would adopt them once increasing density motivates local homeowners to "protect" their neighborhoods. (Heck, in many smaller towns it is illegal to grow veggies in your front garden or let your lawn grass go brown.) An overbearing notion of house-property-values and everything associated with that mindset is not the province of big metros alone. Meanwhile, the recent efforts of cities like Seattle to enable smart urban planning, public transit, and bicycling, even though laughably puny by European standards, are still significantly ahead of the rest of the USA. Most importantly, sprawl is devastating from an environmental point of view - it massively blows up per capita carbon footprint. Well-planned, dense cities can include parks, green space, and even urban wilderness while still accommodating density and drastically reducing car travel. It is a matter of political will, not technical feasibility.