> Are you really going to claim that living in a city is part of the natural world?

I’ll pick little example. Get on Google Maps. Put a pin down at Trebes Park in Chicago. “Walk” North on Racine. At what point does this look like an uncomfortable place to walk? At what point do the trees go away? At what point are you further than 1-1.5 miles from a grocery store? A park or playground?

> Besides, I can flip that argument on its head, cities are limiting and put people in cocoons never having to leave their own neighborhood and see the world.

You think city people can’t rent a car or get on public transit to the airport? The average American spends $5,000 a year on their cars’ total cost of ownership, that could buy you a week long car rental every month.

Again, I’m advocating for reduction in car trips and not designing the lived environment for cars, I’m not saying that nobody should own a car or that city people will never own a car. I own a car myself. I’m just saying that we are putting cars above people on the priority list.

> Have car, can travel.

> That’s the nice thing about choice…

What if you don’t have a car? What do you mean by “choice?” You don’t have a choice, you have to own a car! I think you’re mistaking me here: real choice would be being able to choose not to own a car while still living in the suburbs. Real choice would be someone in a big urban city like LA not having to own a car (but you pretty much have to in a city where public transit was destroyed and the city has been designed around driving for decades).

I’m trying to say that living in the suburbs without being dependent on cars is actually is possible, but not in a poorly designed suburban environment that makes no consideration to other modes.

You’re looking at this as me coming after you and your lifestyle. I’m not. I’m trying to make your patch of grass better! I’m trying to increase the amount of choice that suburban people have! I’m not asking you to make your house smaller or give up your yard.