>>2288741one man's utopia is another's hellscape.
the thing that these kinds of schemes omit is human nature. not everyone wants to live in such an environment, what if you genuinely do not want to live around people? what if you want to be a hermit and tell society to fuck itself? If you remove that outlet, what then (hint,you wind up more Uncle Teds)
gotta say, i'm very glad you're not making policy decisions, your idea sounds absolutely hellish. do you realize how awful most people are in close quarters anon? really though (at least in the US) there is plenty of land, it's not always near economic centers, but maybe that's okay. keep the urban hive dwellers out of the rural areas, an arrangement i think most people are honestly happy with.
there's other things you can do like stopping immigration, preventing corporations from owning residential property, allow corner transits on land, prevent land owners from blocking access to public lands etc etc. (I will concede productive farm/forest land shouldn't be used for subdivisions and mcmansions; but that's handled pretty well at the county level already with permits/zoning req's)
but trying to herd everyone into cities to preserve some idealized notion of nature is foolish.
