I sort of think there are other things still at work here.
People still live near infrastructure (although requirements change)
Maybe 1000 years ago, they probably lived near a port, water source and source of food.
Nowadays we have efficient transport with semis and container ships, but I would imagine that there are still things like say power infrastructure, sources of commerce and schools and even internet that make living practical and affordable.
I'll bet as we can do distributed living practically (PV+batteries, wells/septic , starlink and amazon) that maybe more things are possible.
I wonder if Texas, especially around Dallas, is settling into a pattern that'll work well. If you have enough land, that is. Instead of single big city with dense downtown surrounded by progressively less dense housing, there are multiple cores. Smaller cities, close enough that their suburbs mix. On the surface that does seem more workable than building mega-cities.
That's exactly the right model. Sparse cities with distributed industry.
Houston (Greater Houston Area) is another such example. It's geographically huge, but most commutes are fairly short. This allows Houston to have faster commutes than NYC, despite having a comparable population, and VASTLY better living conditions.
That's called a conurbation. I think it's how most of the mega-cities in the world outside of North America formed in practice. For a case with no primary core, have a look at the Ruhr area.
>> The raw construction cost of a housing unit in a dense building is cheap
Not true. The cost per foot of construction of a single family home is lower than that of a small apartment building. A small apartment building has a lower cost per square foot than a mid-rise apartment. And a mid-rise apartment building has a lower cost per square foot than a high-rise apartment building.
Taking only construction costs into account, when land is cheap, single family homes make the most financial sense, and dense housing doesn't make sense.
Well, except for manufactured homes. They have a lower construction cost per square foot than single family homes, but when most people talk about density they aren't talking about trailer parks.
That's why I specifically said that a per-unit cost is lower in cities. But units tend to become smaller and smaller over time.
> Taking only construction costs into account, when land is cheap, single family homes make the most financial sense, and dense housing doesn't make sense.
I don’t understand the logic here, the land itself will be valuable regardless of whether or not there is a house there or an apartment building. The principal component of the cost of buying a house or a condo is the associated land cost. Building more density gives more people access to that land.
If your contention is that more housing is bad because it draws more economic activity which raises land values then that’s fair but this is the same as arguing for less freedom of movement. Essentially any nation that adopts your policy prescription is taking a step towards turning into the Soviet Union.
That may sound like hyperbole but that is the end result of NIMBYism and illiberal land use policy.
It's the "spiral" part (i.e. self-reinforcing vicious process).
Dense cities allow employers to get access to a larger pool of workers, giving them a competitive advantage. This in turn makes cities more attractive for workers. Since land area is conserved and people won't commute for much more than 30 minutes, it means cities have to increase the density.
This in turn makes cities more attractive for employers, driving the demand for housing even higher.
Rinse, wash, repeat.
> That may sound like hyperbole but that is the end result of NIMBYism and illiberal land use policy.
There is literally no city in Japan, US or in major EU countries that managed to build its way out of high housing prices. Not a single one.
It's the density death spiral. Dense housing gets more expensive (yes, dense housing IS more expensive!), that in turn drives even more density.
The only way to fix it? Promote suburbs and smaller cities. There is literally _no_ other fix.