I think we're just nitpicking over "need" and "makes sense." The need is connected to Mars colonization which is now on Starship's shoulders. I also think that Elon has realized that numbers are more important than speed. You definitely don't need a quick turnaround time when your vehicle is going to be taking many months, to over a year, to get to and from Mars. Certain aspects of Starship will need a quick turnaround time because of orbital refueling. Not that taking a week to refuel is that big a deal when your journey to Mars is four to six months.They have a need to reuse them that rapidly if they want to get Starlink up as fast as possible. There's no limit to need on fast turnaround. Instant turnaround would be best.
I'm not saying that it makes sense to do it with Falcon 9, for a variety of reasons, but the initial statement was that there was no need for faster turnaround. There certainly is, and that's why SpaceX is building Starship. The need is to get tons on orbit as fast as possible.
That linked article is a great example of how Elon's aspirations are often wildly mismatched to what actually plays out. I wonder if there will be another iteration of vehicles after Starship that will be even better suited to Elon's plans for a Mars colony.
Falcon 9 is limited by pad availability and booster recovery times. SpaceX does have a new West Coast pad coming on line soon to really max out the launch cadence. They will need another West Coast ASDS if they are going to launch from that one regularly. Pad SLC-40 has done the bulk of the launches this year. I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX doesn't buy another pad in Florida this upcoming year. Then SpaceX can go for 150 launches for 2025.