I agree with this though I'd set the bar higher. I think it's a very personal choice. I wouldn't want to live in Hong Kong or a similar skyscraper supertall me

I agree with this though I'd set the bar higher. I think it's a very personal choice. I wouldn't want to live in Hong Kong or a similar skyscraper supertall metropolis. And single family homes everywhere with massive lawns are also broken because they make everything too car-ry. But somewhere like London (less dense) or Paris (more dense) has a good balance somewhere. Like, here (London) we have streets and streets of "single family homes", but they're about 100sqm, they're terraced and thin. Walking by one takes like, two seconds or something. On my street alone there are probably 200 of these things, and you can multiply that street by another hundred, and all of those are within easy walking distance of a high street and tube station. Those numbers are probably a bit off but you get the idea. The thing is that people who get super into, well, anything, can't seem to resist going for one or the other extreme, and they seem to want to quantify everything, so it ends up being logically the case that like: Beep boop <the best thing to do is build loads of buildings just under the height limit at which the cost per square foot is optimal and then put everyone in them and then make the ground floor retail and then put the metro station> boop beep. But that's playing The Sims, not like, living in a world with real humans with wants and desires. Some people want to live in Manhattan and others want to live on 50 acres in Arkansas and that's fine.