I wasn't aware it was up for debate either. I and most people I know consider quality of life to be (in general) inversely proportional to population density. I guess I never even considered the possibility that there was another side.
Having lived both in an urban setting in college, and "upgraded" to the suburbs for my adult life, I can tell you that for me there's no comparison. My quality of life is MUCH higher here than it was then, and not just because I have a positive income now. I'd almost go as far as to say that if I was forced to move back to a city (and I would have to be forced), I would probably consider it a nightmare.
Based on how many different points you made, you seem to feel strongly about this. I'm not going to counter every one, but I'll jump around a little.
For one thing, I'm not sure that what an urban planner thinks we should be "shooting for" is the same as what we actually should be shooting for. You cite a lot of comparisons between cities of different densities. You don't cite any comparisons between cities and suburbs.
While I'm aware of the trend of people moving into cities, I always assumed most were doing so involuntarily, though I could be wrong about that. Probably because, as I indicated, that's the only way I would do so.
You also paint a very appealing picture of city living, with walking to the grocery store, and taking the metro to work. But most metros I've been on, you don't dare take your eyes off your fellow passengers, let alone read a book.
I couldn't imagine how many extra trips to the store I'd have to take if I could only buy as much as I could carry.
I guess when you get down to it it really is just a matter of preference. But I guess I would then submit that if high-density is your preference you have plenty of choices. No reason to wish it on a population that doesn't want it.
