> Yes population is declining, but everyone wants to live in the same small area. Is it a case of everyone wanting to live in the same small area, or people wa

> Yes population is declining, but everyone wants to live in the same small area. Is it a case of everyone wanting to live in the same small area, or people wanting to live near the amenities? The former implies a small number of places supporting very high densities of people. The latter can be achieved with moderate densities. People like to claim that property values are high because we aren't making land anymore. Even though this is true in the literal sense, there is an incredible amount of land that can be recovered. As an example, my city is tearing down an interchange to recover several acres of land for residential and commercial use and to allow for non-car dependent modes of transportation for local residents. Reducing that car dependence is important not just because of space allocated to roads, but to reduce parking needs. More land freed up and development costs are decreased. Imagine that you built up more moderate density communities where the vast majority of a person's life can be lived in a 30 minute walking radius. Sure, some people will still drive, but it would be over shorter distances and for fewer trips. Would they choose really choose the very high densities and very high cost of a small number of neighbourhoods in a small number of cities over moderate density regions where they may actually have an opportunity to own their own home, even if the house is a bit smaller and the yard is a bit smaller?