[nlittlepoole]

I agree with you but I think one thing that might help people fear this change less is reiterating that the density necessary isn't Manhattan or Downtown Chicago. There are a lot of ways to make an efficient urban area without being a massive megalopolis. Neighborhoods like Park Slope in Brooklyn or Sunset in SF are good examples. Multifamily housing doesn't have to mean high rises.

People also don't have to live in what we think of as cities at all. Rural living is fine if people live closer together in those areas. Such that they live in walkable towns that don't require driving and can be easily connected to other towns and cities via a bus or train. Europe is much better at this but you see vestiges in New England. It's just nobody should really be living beyond walking or biking distance of core services (transport, shopping, etc). The benefit for those who love nature is more untampered natural beauty in the surrounding areas. If anyone has ever been to a place like Banff it's lovely when fine right.

[oblio]

Someone posted here that the maximum density with this type of housing is 3 stories, 75 dwellings per hectare, so about 7500 dwellings per square kilometer. At 3 stories, that has to be at least 6 people per dwelling, so about 45k people per square kilometer. Let's cut that to 5k people per square kilometer to account for infrastructure, shops, schools, etc, it still seems reasonable.

We don't even need more than that on average, we don't need Hong Kongs everywhere. "Brownstones" will do :-)