Hmm... I'm not sure I'm comfortable with a definition of city that excludes (e.g.) Los Angeles and Dallas-Fort Worth.
Reading what I wrote above in the light of day makes it sound like I'm advocating forcible population redistribution. I'm not... just pointing out that a European-style urban environment probably can't happen in the low densities typical of the United States, and that the only way to achieve such densities here would probably require force (which would be a bad thing, IMO).
I haven't finished reading his book, so I can't speak to the context in which he says this.
I guess it depends on what you consider force. If you stop encouraging suburb development, would that be force? It would certainly promote such redistribution, but I wouldn't consider that force. As another HN link noticed, this kind of financial incentive to move into the city has already started happening, but it has been a bottom-up bit.
Reading what I wrote above in the light of day makes it sound like I'm advocating forcible population redistribution. I'm not... just pointing out that a European-style urban environment probably can't happen in the low densities typical of the United States, and that the only way to achieve such densities here would probably require force (which would be a bad thing, IMO).