| > > Is it fair to say that the suburb layout is generally considered ideal to live in? > Is it considered ideal? Maybe. Is it actually ideal? No. Ideal in what? Ideal has to be measured by some metric, so which one or which ones? What makes these discussions interminable is that some of the metrics are objective but some are subjective so there can't be any one ideal answer. An objective measure is housing units per square km. Easy to measure, it's just math. Obviously high-rise apartment buildings maximize that metric. So is that the only metric that should ever be considered? Or the most important one? Then there are also the subjective metrics of niceness. While many people might be happy living in those high-rises, many people won't do it. Should the density maximizers be the only people who get a vote in these matters? If so, why is that? Why are they more special citizens than others? That sure doesn't sound fair. Or should they get no vote? Well that's not fair either. So clearly there can't be one ideal answer, it's compromises all the way. Many people will have legitimate preferences that differ from yours, that in no way makes them "absurd". |
If your preference means that teachers can't afford homes within city limits, emissions won't improve, infrastructure can't be sustained [1], cars are the only viable transportation, etc, etc, then your opinion should really be discarded by decision makers.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-10-04/how-subur...