Many low density towns get away without a sewer system, houses can use a septic system instead. In low density towns you can build horizontally, which uses les

Many low density towns get away without a sewer system, houses can use a septic system instead. In low density towns you can build horizontally, which uses less human, energy, material resources than building upwards. In a low density town, parks and fields have low enough usage that the grass can be maintained on its own, in cities the fields need to re-sodded often and require extra fertilizer. In cities you end up building roads on multiple levels, railways underground, etc, all of which adds enormous resource costs to construction. Cities have so much pavement they are noticeably hotter in the summer, which requires more air conditioning. On the flip side, low density towns require more asphalt per capita and more day-to-day gasoline usage. Overall though, it's not on the face of it obvious to me that low density is more resource intensive. I'd be interested if you have links to detailed research on the matter. It's also not obvious to me that small towns are more subsidized. Bridges, highways, subways, etc, going into a city are all government funded. And cities like Washington D.C. and New York are basically imperial cities - they make most of their income from politically connected agencies, banks, contractors, etc.