I disagree with the author. I know he's incredibly successful and right about pretty much everything he's ever said, but I've had some experience in this area and just finished reading through some of the archives and I think his focus is wrong. I'm going to ignore the technical issue and talk about the bigger picture and higher level things than what was said in the blog post. If the OP thinks that the process is most important, it's really about end results. But if he thinks it should be about the end results then he's an idiot for not thinking about the process. I'll weasel in a reference the startup I co-founded even though it's not directly relevant.
Continuing the discussion of point Z, here's an interesting way[1] it relates back to the OP. And here are some unknown facts[2] the OP didn't include.
But considering climate change, having people sized sidewalks and taxing the externalities of the process is really the point you failed to consider. Nuclear might work but there is a lot more to it that doesn’t get addressed in the article. Estonia really gets this correct and proves the point that the American city isn’t going to be well designed if we don’t consider the impact of the rail system and electrification.
