>>1988055>You clearly don’t grasp the problem that is urban sprawl.Urban Sprawl is not a problem. You haven't even defined any problems clearly, just made some vague hand-waving about overpopulation.
>You have to start over from scratch in entirely different areasStarting from scratch is essentially impossible for a massive list of reasons that should be obvious to anyone with a brain.
1. City growth is always driven by economy first and economies are heavily shaped by geography. You can't just move New York Harbor to West Virginia because you want a do-over on the urban planning. This concept isn't obvious to Redditors for some reason.
2. Every parcel of land is divided up and claimed, even in a country as large as the US, to say nothing of Europe. You literally can't start from scratch because any place where a large city might be feasible already has at least a village or a town there or is valuable farmland. You're always going to be growing from what's already there.
3. The population of the Western US is already stressing scarce water resources (which are getting even scarcer as the North Pacific High strengthens). We certainly don't need MORE cities out west, the ones we have are bad enough.
>You also forgot that building new cities would create jobs in the construction industryYou can't just build shit for no reason. Opportunities for profit must exist there before construction can be worthwhile. A large city needs a strong economic core.
>>1988126>Cities are like gravityYeah and the center of that gravity is the economic core. Sure you can maybe grow little villages from scratch (or almost scratch), but you can't just plan out and build city infrastructure and expect it to be viable without considering the long-term economic viability. In reality this means you build near existing cities or natural resources.
