>> who actually wants to live like that? One way to answer that is "demand." People demonstrably do want to live in a lot of dense noisy cities, with cramped

>> who actually wants to live like that? One way to answer that is "demand." People demonstrably do want to live in a lot of dense noisy cities, with cramped living quarters, high costs, etc. They put up with a lot in order to do so. NY, SF, London, Beijing, Etc. The old "no one goes there, too crowded" quip. The counterargument (IMO) is that people want to live where be jobs, power, cultural elites, etc. Those can exist in suburban city plans, ancient city centres, etc. Some are nice. Many are not. I would say that people are adaptable. The operative question probably isn't who wants to live like that broadly. It's who will choose to move there. That'll depend on issues that are usually outside the scope of planning. Proximity. Culture. Jobs. Finance... How WFH develops is highly relevant, for example. Some things are not very amenable to "start small" approaches. Are tools in a planners realistic toolbox sufficient for doing any of these things? I think we're currently in a moment of opportunity. That means some underlying limitations are in flux. That doesn't mean planners have unlimited powers though. Ideas that require everything to change the way a planner wants them to are wishy washy.