I'm interested because they vary hugely. 'Sprawl' (I don't like the term because it implies it is bad) can be very nice to live in and some of the biggest publi

I'm interested because they vary hugely. 'Sprawl' (I don't like the term because it implies it is bad) can be very nice to live in and some of the biggest public transport cities (like London) getting to work can be awful. But the devil is in the detail as they say. There are wider economic questions to be asked too - use of arable land? are restrictive planning laws directing worse economic outcomes? are 'local communities' of social and economic benefit? should we be building housing which isn't the most high-profit kind? IMO careful consideration of these should drive development but it's never done.