> Do you think there are economic efficiencies in gathering a large workforce in one location?
Oh, absolutely. It's more efficient for companies to hire workforce in dense cities and offload the externalities (increasing cost of living) onto the public.
Just like with pollution: if you dump toxic sludge into rivers, your factory can make widgets cheaper, than a factory that has to take care of its waste.
> Do you think suburbia is an efficient and effective use of land?
I don't think _efficiency_ should be the reason for cities. A polluting factory is also more efficient than a clean factory. Yet we somehow don't appreciate that efficiency anymore.
Moreover, the amount of urban areas is around 2% of the total land area in the US. De-aggregating the cities will only result in its increase by maybe 20%.
Do you think suburbia is an efficient and effective use of land?