[spaced-out]

If your urban planning is going to prioritize giving tourists scenic views rather than building affordable homes for the people that live and work in the city, then you shouldn't be surprised if the city turns into an giant museum/resort where only the wealthy can afford a decent QoL (because they're the only ones who can financially compete with the tourists).

[Tade0]

Here's the thing: with the proliferation of AirBnB and real-estate-as-an-investment that's already the case regardless of density.

In my corner of the world people move out of large cities not because they enjoy driving so much, but because they don't have the credit score for anything within city limits

Space and access to sunlight are also components of quality of life and you have neither in very dense housing.

[spaced-out]

>but because they don't have the credit score for anything within city limits

That's because there's not enough housing in the city limits.

>Space and access to sunlight are also components of quality of life and you have neither in very dense housing.

That's not true, adding a few more sky scrapers increases the amount of space for people and does not impact the amount of sunlight people can enjoy.

Cities can also do things like add more rail lines, so people can commute from further away -- which also increases the amount of space for people.