I agree, but "building cities" is essentially synonymous with subsidising infrastructure and providing building permits around existing towns and villages.
Investment in cities' infrastructure isn't a subsidy, its seed money to get the economic engine humming. Once it is, Governments reap in the benefits of increased tax receipts.
Whereas, subsidizing rural and semi-rural populations, outside of those engaged in the primary sector, has no such benefit. In fact, they require more and more help as time passes with no benefits in tax receipts at all.
Perhaps, but you may not always know ahead of time which one it's going to be if you let towns grow organically to become cities (or not).
Building entirely new government planned cities on the green field is extremely difficult to get right. You're not just building infrastructure, you're effectively designing a social environment. What if it doesn't attract the right mix of people? What if it collides with democratic and legal rights of neighboring communities?
