It is your opinion that to get from your house to any other location, you need to use a bike, a task that many find more difficult (and dangerous) than walking in cold/rainy/snowy climates, and also results in having to pull out the bike (perhaps down some stairs) and find someplace to lock it up? That sounds like a lot of mental overhead for a brief trip to the deli.

I agree that biking is a wonderful way to get around (especially bike share, which I take advantage of regularly in Brooklyn for commuting and pleasure trips), but I also find it difficult to argue that it's inherently superior to walking in terms of community planning...

> the bike of tomorrow is really a light weight electric vehicle, perhaps a foldable scooter with a small Lithium ion battery pack that is charged with a solar panel.

This sounds pretty similar in concept to the Segway, and we all saw how well those worked. Not saying it can't work in the future, but there are certainly some challenges to solve before it can become mainstream (such as: what do you do in the rain? how do you remain charged in cloudy climates? how do they fit into existing traffic flow: with cars, or with bikes, or elsewhere? etc...)

> The result is a town that has culture, and restaurants and bars and a very usable public transportation system, along with scenic beauty and ample space so that one need not live packed into a tuna can.

You don't need Boulder-level (5k ppl/sq mi) density for this. Brooklyn or SF density will do, and will provide more reliable public transit than a bus network.

I personally find the Mission district coupled with Dolores Park and Bernal Heights to have ample space and scenic beauty for all my needs. Many cities neglect public parks, and they can make the difference between a dense but livable and a stifling neighborhood.