> On the contrary, dense populations allow for the efficient distribution of goods and services. There may be an aesthetic argument in favor of small town living but there isn’t an environmental one.

I would suggest it is not as cut and dry as you suggest, and is heavily dependent on where the population centres are. For the majority of towns and towns folk, there is a deeper connection to the surrounding environment and what it provides. Rural populations get much of what sustains them from the nearby surroundings, be it through gardens, hunting and fishing, local agriculture etc. You would be hard presses to find big city populations that do the same in anywhere near the same percentage.

I lived in a small, northern town for 20 year, and currently live in the heart of downtown of a major city. The difference could not be more contrasting.

That's true, but those distributed goods primarily come from rural areas.

Obviously we need both rural and urban areas, but I suppose my "born in a small town" bias wants a better balance between the two than we currently have. For the benefit of both!

At least in the US, I feel a “better balance” would mean extreme missing middle housing production in the most productive cities so that the difference in the cost of housing between cities and rural areas would decline. I’d also be supportive of promoting actual “small towns” like those areas across much of the Midwest and rust belt that have a dense historic center and allow one to live a car free or reduced car lifestyle. What we do not need is more low density single family home car dependent living space.

I guess it depends on what metric we use to measure quantity but I’d guess that by many measures those goods primarily come from urbanized areas outside the US. Which once again points to the environmental benefits of density, particularly near deep ocean ports.