There is a third way. Suburban single-family zones full of cul-de-sacs are designed to be metaphorically put under glass and never changed. Building massive towers, on the other hand, is very drastic and has the potential to destroy the character of a community.
I like the approach advocated by the Strong Towns movement: allow the next increment of development by right, everywhere. So a neighborhood of mostly single-family homes should allow accessory dwelling units (mother-in-law apartments) and conversion to duplexes by right. A neighborhood of duplexes should allow conversion to triplexes or quadplexes by right. A neighborhood of those should allow conversion to even denser development like townhomes, and multiplexes, etc. This allows a town or city to grow gradually and naturally.
The way they put it is, "No community should have to experience extreme change... but no community should be exempt from change". Wanting to build massive towers to address housing shortages is not ideal, but it's an understandable reaction, when it's illegal to address the shortage by having every neighborhood in the city "thicken up" a bit.
This is how the great cities we love all over the world became great -- through gradual, incremental change and intensification.
Which puts the neighborhood under glass. If you are going to rebuild that means your payout needs to pay for the current value of the building, tear down fees, and new construction fees. If the neighborhood is in decline no problem - land is cheap and the buildings are not being maintained, but there is no demand to build anything there so nothing gets built. If the area is in demand land values are high, the people living there maintain their property (to ensure it keeps the value), and so the costs of building one more floor are always greater than the costs of keeping the building.
That needn't be the case though. Many estates with cul-de-sacs are better designed and have paths between them so while cars can't drive straight through pedestrians (and depending on local rules, cyclists) can get around more freely.
They are a sterile insular abomination when the only way out is by car to get anywhere useful. Then save some more money by leaving out sidewalks. Who needs those? The real problem is poor oversight of developers who think they know what they're doing when they draw their silly street designs on paper.
Cul de sacs historically meant that you or your kid can't walk or cycle two other cul de sacs without going on a busy arterial street, though modern approaches that preserve walking/cycling paths while blocking cars seem better.
I like the approach advocated by the Strong Towns movement: allow the next increment of development by right, everywhere. So a neighborhood of mostly single-family homes should allow accessory dwelling units (mother-in-law apartments) and conversion to duplexes by right. A neighborhood of duplexes should allow conversion to triplexes or quadplexes by right. A neighborhood of those should allow conversion to even denser development like townhomes, and multiplexes, etc. This allows a town or city to grow gradually and naturally.
The way they put it is, "No community should have to experience extreme change... but no community should be exempt from change". Wanting to build massive towers to address housing shortages is not ideal, but it's an understandable reaction, when it's illegal to address the shortage by having every neighborhood in the city "thicken up" a bit.
This is how the great cities we love all over the world became great -- through gradual, incremental change and intensification.