>
So it becomes "minutiae" when the facts don't support your argument.You've honed into one small aspect of my argument and ignored your own counter argument that you've made. I don't understand what point you are trying to prove. It's minutiae because, as you've already shown, Singapore has amazing schools while having incredibly high population density. The link between school budgets and performance is not completely divorced as it has been shown within America there is a correlation. However those arguments, and the research behind them are simply not relevant to the current discussion. The claim was schools in dense neighborhoods are worse. I claimed that funding was a far more important factor. You've shown that Singapore has exceptional schools in the densest urban capital.
>I can walk (and do so every day with the dog) to a corner mall with two Chinese restaurants, Japanese restaurant, water store, sandwich shop, nail salon, barber shop, florist, watch repair business, dental office, tea business, pizza place, health food store, bike shop, post office, Safeway, IHOP, and Chase bank branch. Plus a very large Chinese restaurant going up where the Rite Aid used to be.
It's also snowing in Denver so global warming must not exist. Like seriously, what are you trying to argue here and what does it have to do with high density development?
>No, but some people prefer it to urban squalor.
Again, there is a mountain of options between San Jose and Manhattan and these cities have existed in Europe for longer than America has been around. To consider a city like Amsterdamn "urban squalor" because they have mutli-family zoning is just ignorant. Children can walk to school in the "urban squalor" of Amsterdam (which is almost 3x as dense as San Jose). San Jose still struggles with having sidewalks in many areas.