The surrounding cities also had similar rules for what it’s worth. But stepping back, I don’t get the point of trying to concentrate density in a small area and creating problems for the environment and quality of life. In the end you get a concrete landscape of big apartment blocks with all the habitats for small animals, birds, fish destroyed. That’s not a great place to live. It seems healthier to make use of our country’s land and have development that fits in with its area, and it would mean better living conditions for people as well.
It's not the same. The US has (nominally) some measure of keeping people out of the country. Cities in the US can't keep people from other parts of the US from moving there. We don't have internal population control like say China internal residence permits (I'm sure there are other examples, that's just what I know about).
So people are gonna move to cities whether you want them to or not, and we need to build places for them to live. Unless you want to drastically restrict freedom of movement.
> But stepping back, I don’t get the point of trying to concentrate density in a small area and creating problems for the environment and quality of life
From an environmental perspective, it is the better way if you don't push people back into pre-industrial era.
Dense cities use drastically less energy per capita, and pollute less exhaust/etc.
I feel like the arguments for density being environmentally friendly are often focused on a few aspects to tell this narrative, but ignore other aspects. Traffic is higher in dense areas and contributes to concentrated pollution and mental health issues that have other effects further on. Constructing giant concrete buildings is more polluting than small wooden buildings (if sustainably harvested). And so on. A comprehensive analysis of all the aspects doesn’t seem to exist. But I’ve not searched very much either, I’ll admit.
