This comment gets to the crux of the issue which the author isn't touching on either. The author points out that we need more downtown area and density because that pays for more than the cost of maintaining infrastructure it consumes. From a city budget perspective it makes sense to then want more density.

However, why do we have one lifestyle finance another one? Why should people who live in a downtown apartment pay for maintaining infrastructure for people who base their choices on getting away from others? This is even more crazy given that the environmental impact per capita is also much lower in denser areas. I'm not even saying that we should have a taxation system encourages density, but let's at least have one that doesn't exploit density to subsidize the suburbs!