[ssivark]

Well, from an aggregate population level it naively seems cheaper (more efficient) to insure people against car break-ins rather than subsidize low-density housing infrastructure (roads, water, electricity, internet, etc.). That's apart from the productivity increase resulting from higher density (eg: see Geoffrey West's work on the nature of cities), and the loss of forest/agricultural land in rural areas. So, while low-density suburban housing avoids break-ins, it leads to bigger unanswered questions.