I imaging few things like: - most SMALL projects succeed while most large fail, small projects can evolve, larger have bigger issues, small fails cost far less

I imaging few things like: - most SMALL projects succeed while most large fail, small projects can evolve, larger have bigger issues, small fails cost far less in absolute terms than larger one so are easy to "try and see if it works"; - we are in a climate change scenario, so building complex infra on land is a stupid idea, we do not really know enough area-per-area where living in the next 100+ years and FOR the next 100+ would be good/doable or inopportune; - ALL theory to lower prices of public infra have regularly failed; - we, rightly, foresee and push short-range mobility by air, concerned more about people receptions than technical issues: https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-report.pdf https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-... such mobility is called "urban" but anyone with a trace of smartness understand that that's no room for such model in cities, while there is in spread rivieras; - the biggest point of modern cities was the vast amount of SMEs and few large in a close area to keep prices down, innovation up, specialization to create new jobs etc. This point is gone in the mega-corp present era. Long story short for what I see cities will be the receptacle of poverty and desperation while the wealthy will be outside in nature. Thanks to modern tech the "right density" is the Riviera model, not anymore the city model. Of course all who are soldiers of mainstream PR will deny such claim, not even trying to reasoning about it. EVEN if many articles here and there prove it, without explicitly telling.