Allow me an european point-of-view (most EU and USA people would disagree): I read in comments various positions, but actually all of you are talking about the

Allow me an european point-of-view (most EU and USA people would disagree): I read in comments various positions, but actually all of you are talking about the "Riviera model" witch means a densely but not to dense area populated by homes instead of multi-families/high rise buildings. That's IMO is the best form of city in the actual level of tech and social evolutionary stage: cities with big buildings are simply too dense to evolve, buildings get old but can't be really replaced because it's too costly and it's too complicated relocating many families, makes different owners of parts of them to rebuilt etc => dense cities can't evolve, they are too dense. Far less dense areas do not have the density benefits for culture, economics, generic human social life. The middle ground is the Riviera, where some works "in the office" but at a short commuting range, in small buildings spread between homes, some works remotely. Today that's good enough for local services too exists, good enough for remote workers, good for EVs since almost all have personal garages, place for p.v. in the vast areas of the world where it's meaningful, sustainable for logistics (retail and so on), it's new in most places so we can start over aging but not-much-replaceable infra, for tomorrow drone delivery it's possible, flying cars as well if we really reach this step soon enough in decades terms. There is only a but IMO: those who profit from many other humans dislike such model: it's centered on a distributed economy where all can earn a bit without excesses so poor's live far better, rich earn far less and a strong middle class rule by mere numbers and effective decision power and awareness. And that's IMO why so many "high in the pyramid" want RTO and many "low in the pyramid" fear the future of dense cities as new kind of labor camps/ghettos.