[fjsolwmv]

Those are problems of bad architecture, not high density. Apartment buildings offer great value -- you don't need to deal with baby seats in cars. Children can walk to school and social life, often without leaving the building, which is great in winter. Mass transit it easy to build efficiently. Overall families in balc hours of their week from the bane of driving. Greenways can be built and well appointed close in to the city when there isn't housing sprawl. Everyone has wealthier to afford luxuries because they aren't wasting money on low-density utility systems that bankrupt suburbs. Arts and culture and special services for the disabled are on abundance.

[NeedMoreTea]

I've never encountered high density housing that had an attached school in the building in any of the places I've visited. Neither does it avoid the need to travel, or have a car. Mass transit may be efficient, but travelling with a toddler by bus and train is a nightmare on crowded city services. Unless it's a short trip when you don't need much beyond the buggy.

Sure the schools may be nearer in a city, but they often come with a poor reputation, or the nearby ones are full so you have to travel just as far anyway. Air quality and neighbours aren't a problem of bad architecture either.

Perhaps if we went back and levelled the place and rebuilt with some of the values of pre-war times we could create high density housing that worked. We'd need local shops, services, transport hubs and schools. The very things that have been consolidating away from local hubs throughout the past 50 years.