You’re making it an OR when it’s an AND. You can have vast forests and parks, massive shopping, and entertainment at a distance AND still live in a livable, wa

You’re making it an OR when it’s an AND. You can have vast forests and parks, massive shopping, and entertainment at a distance AND still live in a livable, walkable place. If you want to live in a very large home with a huge shop, that’s also possible. The current model excludes walkable and livable cities in favor of car dependency. Lack of car dependency doesn’t exclude the use of cars or having a mix of use cases. But car dependence by nature does. Nobody is saying you can’t have central parks, Costco and theme parks or whatever use cases you’re referencing. But you should also enjoy a neighborhood coffee shop and local grocery, a bakery down the street and places for your kids to play while you have dinner right in your own neighborhood. These are foreign concepts for those used to the suburbs and I often get accosted with comments like your which are deeply valid but reinforce just one set of values without really considering that it’s not a competition, but an addition and enhancement to our way of life — more of a return to what our grandparents enjoyed — that walkable cities is advocating. There is a full spectrum of possibilities. I won’t even get into the higher property values, healthier lifestyles, reduced cancer and heart disease risks and increased lifespans, the more deeply connected communities… moving away from just cars as the foundation for moving around, between and therefore for planning our cities generates many virtuous cycles. So, no resistance. You can have it all, but consider that cities could be a LOT better if we struck a real balance. You should see what people are building… https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wrnAsMSwGbg&pp=ygUPV2Fsa2FibGUgY2l0aWVz https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wrnAsMSwGbg&pp=ygUPV2Fsa2FibGU...