> If people already know how to make 'human sized places' wouldn't that imply planning?

No, it's what arises from a lack of planning when you let individual or small groups of humans build structures that fit their needs without too much meddling. A shop owner builds a shop the way he wants it to be. The apartment building next door is built the way that apartment building owner wants it to be.

There's no central committee forcing them to adhere to a grand central plan that makes everything look alike. That's how you end up with varied, idiosyncratic architecture that has personality instead of the vast, lifeless spaces that were designed by committee to be all things to all people and end up being nothing to no one.

There does have to be some central coordination to help mediate disputes and ensure one person doesn't infringe too much on others, but it should be minimal.

My counterpoint is that we are facing far bigger problems than how charming or "human" a place is to live. Density, economics, and environmental problems should come first, and I doubt a lack of planning would find any sort of optimum across those factors in a reasonable amount of time. Emphasis on the timescale. I can buy that things might converge to a happy maxima eventually, but can society afford the wait?

This is the counterintuitive result. You succeed by unplanning. You fail by committing to planning and then hoping the plan that succeeds is your plan.

I have zero idea what you are talking about. The person I replied to was implying that walkability only happens organically but planning leads to sprawl, which is ridiculous since there are so many counter examples all over the world of apartments and shopping developed together.

Your comment seems to be about aesthetics, but it makes no sense. Do you think shop owners usually build the buildings they inhabit? No one mentioned a uniform look and it has nothing to do with anything. It is completely orthogonal.