> Were they designed intentionally as such or this that an outcome of history? Both. And with different constraints at different time periods. Aside, people i

> Were they designed intentionally as such or this that an outcome of history? Both. And with different constraints at different time periods. Aside, people in the past weren't stupid and they built cities purposefully. Just like cavemen weren't stupid, they just had less _stuff_, knowledge, tools, etc. > In any case what value does this "norm" have? Using less fuel. Enjoying a more healthy body and mind, enjoying life. Leaving a better world for its future inhabitants. > You would prefer to walk around a city because it's that's dense as opposed to walking around nature that's specifically set aside for this type of enjoyment? Strawman ("because it's that dense"). I like walking in cities AND nature. Both can be true. Also, why should nature be "set aside"? What a weird notion. Why shouldn't we have more "nature" in our cities, in fact we know it's probably better to do exactly that, for a myriad of reasons that have been scientifically researched. Why should WE "set aside" nature, as if it was somehow external to us.