I'm pretty disappointed by this book; it's got major "meh" energy.

The basic premise is that most unhappy :( cites are those designed around cars, for cars, and what we really need in order to be happy is closeness, connection, outdoor seating, bike lanes, we need to walk around promenades and savor the diversity and textures of daily life in the modern agora, and blah blah blah... You'd think Bob Ross wrote this thing, putting happy little trees and happy little coffee shops everywhere...

Ok, fine. The author presents a few examples where going from car-centric to people-centric really did improve the wellness and happiness of its people - and I believe it and wholeheartedly welcome it, but his tone was that of a prescriptive, pompous cosmopolitan know-it-all, rather than a measured, unbiased urban designer. If the author had his way, we'd all be living in a Disneyfied interpretation of his ideal happy city.

Also, you think "car cities" are unsafe? I have seen more serious accidents in cities with extensive bike lanes with their two-wheeled arseholes who think they are in Tour-de-France, than in most car friendly cities. True story.

At the end of the day, you could not pay me enough money to move to a socially dense city. I have worked in NYC and have friends in NYC who wouldn't change it for the world, but it just doesn't work for me. I need distance from people, I'd like to go out and run and not have to keep my head on a swivel in fear of being run over by a stressed out delivery driver, stepping on dog excrement, or tripping over a rat the size of a Shitzu.

And that's another thing I didn't like about this book, the author bashes "suburban sprawl" and posits it as causing this massive decline in urban quality of life, yet cherry-picks the very worst examples to make his case. Connected city-living has its major downsides too, but you won't find an inventory of them here.

All in all, it was a bit of a boring read, but maybe I just don't care about urban design that much?