There are two competing perspectives among the people who advocate for a return to building dense urban environments: - environmentalism, which asks people to

There are two competing perspectives among the people who advocate for a return to building dense urban environments: - environmentalism, which asks people to make personal sacrifices for the greater good (environment) - urbanism, which asks people to allow others to live in denser, more efficient configurations The problem we have is that the rhetoric is environmentalist but the policy is urbanist. I don't want to argue that you should make sacrifices. It's not essential to what I see as the core political-economic program I'm advocating for city development. Nobody anywhere ever is proposing to make you live in an apartment. But you're constantly asking me to defend this: >I hate this dystopia you people envision of living packed like sardines in a can. I never argue for this. I argue that zoning restrictions should be relaxed. I argue that bike commuters should be supported. I argue that buses should be funded. I argue that old poorly insulated buildings should be replaceable. But radicals always talk more. I have a job. I can't join every discussion about urbanism and re-re-re-reiterate the case for liberty as a form of moderation. Stop hyper-focusing on the most extreme version of urbanization in your complaints. It's not going to happen anyway.