>>1938094Okay, with that explanation, I am rethinking my answer.
Firstly, your statement is still one of anecdotal rebuttal, which will not refute any established general rule on its own.
Secondly, the point you seem to be arguing is that your time to get to work was relatively short with the proposed dispersed housing situation. However, my counterpoint is that you did not understand my initial premise. Your lived experience seems to be that you work and live in New York or some other similarly large metro area with well established public transport and/or the capacity to build said transport. Therefore, when it comes to increasing housing availability, your argument is build these houses in an area with low population density such that the city workers can take public transport from these areas.
My question is along the lines of "What can be done to alleviate low density housing in general in America", i.e. in places where the only houses are suburbs due to zoning laws, and due to boomer local government, there is no way to build public transport links within any one persons lifetime. So when you suggest building in low density areas, my rebuttal is that in such areas as prescribed above, high density housing in a low density area will only result in moving a bunch of people to a place with no public transport links, resulting in greater car dependence, which is the opposite of the desired goals.
