Perfection: the enemy of progress
It's easy, when trying to make sense of complex systems like cities, to latch onto frameworks that are clear and legible. While such frameworks are useful in helping to simplify complicated problems, the temptation to apply them universally can lead us down another version of a path we're trying to escape: inflexible codes and ordinances that don't stand the test of time.
Overall population, population density, the sizes and density of buildings, public transportation networks, major employers and industries--these are all things that shape the uniqueness of a place. What IS universal is that nearly every locality (edit: in the US) has outdated, inflexible ordinances on the books that need to be revisited if we're going to continue to build places that support human thriving in the 21st century and beyond.
What I'm seeing lately in urbanism spaces is that rigid adherence to specific frameworks can lead groups who are otherwise aligned on desired outcomes to remain at loggerheads when a nuanced and flexible approach would allow progress to proceed. Rather than a checklist of policies to implement, we need a policy toolbox in service of guiding principles.