That's an uncharitable and incorrect view of what I'm saying. There's TONS of right ways to build cities and communities, and ALL of them are not car-DEPENDENT.

That's an uncharitable and incorrect view of what I'm saying. There's TONS of right ways to build cities and communities, and ALL of them are not car-DEPENDENT. Whether some people want to use cars is a more fuzzy and complex question, and there's definitely a place for them and lots of good arguments for the benefits of cars, especially for specific cases. But there's no good case for building communities that are fundamentally car-DEPENDENT where you CANNOT live there other than by complete car reliance. It's not about subjective tastes. Objectively, car-dependent places are financially and environmentally unsustainable. It's a matter of scale. Some individuals can live car-focused lives within a system that is not entirely car-dependent, and that can be fine. Cars can have a place. But if everything is car-dependent, we get non-resilient places that are not economically productive enough to maintain the massive amount of infrastructure that car-dependent communities have. https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme Subjective tastes are like choosing the color for painting a house. It's not subjective to notice simple facts like that cars take up orders of magnitude more space than all other forms of transit. You are completely right that many people want cars. But people also want to be free of traffic jams. There is no actual way to build a system in which everyone has all that they want when our wants are incompatible. These things have to be balanced. A lot of people might want to live in beautiful wilderness locations, but if we let everyone build homes there, the wilderness goes away. Saying that it's wrong to ruin the wilderness with suburban sprawl doesn't in the slightest deny the fact that many people like living in the wilderness and countryside. We simply can't all live in beautiful wilderness. But we COULD all live in non-car-dependent walkable places. So, while living in a special wilderness or ocean-side cliffs and so on is necessarily scarce and elite, it's possible to build enough human-scale walkable places for everyone who wants to live that way, and it's a tragedy and market-failure that we don't do that — and THAT is the point of the original article.