Why not both?
I’m not sure why your response is so hostile against my support of the idea, or why you make so many unfounded assumptions.
How do you know I don’t raise my voice against those views in public? And I never said anything about such spaces being “zones out of sight”, that was your addition. I didn’t say that this article’s idea was the limit of what I support.
Sure it could be “even better”… literally any idea could be even better. But if you attack everything less than perfection, we will never get anywhere.
I interpreted it as directed at me and my comment, because you wrote it as a reply to my comment, rather than a reply to the article.
The rest… i will leave you with that. I still disagree with your perspective.