this is the paper discussed, open access

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/brv.70094?af=R

People thrive better over a longer period of time in small to mid-size towns (proto-cities) with access to some kind of larger productivity center (where they work, or go for leisure). Remote work has made this more efficient, and some people don’t even need to commute.

There need to be more towns, or small cities. But why is there such a lack of development? It’s unconscionable to expect millions of people to live in close proximity. It’s not efficient for consumer activities or investment returns when competition eats up much more of your share than is fairly warranted. You lose out because of lack of advertising than quality of product or innovation.

But more small towns means more of everything—more colleges, more schools, more hospitals, more jobs. We keep producing and educating more and more people, but expect them all to live and work in the same places, which I find aggravating to no end.

If you want to go to Oxford and work for Google, there should be more Oxfords and Googles (satellite campuses or subsidiaries, I don’t care). The monopolists and oligarchs can get their pound of flesh even in this kind of semi-urban model. Where are the new developments? Build them however you like, green small towns with optimized planning. Why not? There’s not enough incentivizing from leadership in public or private sectors, except resources are wasted on speculative engines like crypto miners and cryptocurrencies. What a clown show.