You're viewing a single thread.
Logic here is broken because we don't make these decisions anyway. A developer will instead put 30 apartment buildings while chopping down anything that gets in the way, then charge more for rent than you'd be charged for the mortgage on the house. There's also the fact that this picture assumes every family on the left pic doesn't give a fuck about free scaping, preserving trees, or planting new ones? Idk, whole thing is jacked.
It feels like whoever made this only sees those large suburban sprawls in the South West of the US where it's all flat desert. Or the suburbs built on large tracts of farmland that had trees taken down many years before for crops.
Housing development is expensive when you have to cut down and uproot large tracts of forest. They're not willing to do that unless there is a high rate of return... Such as an apartment building with a hundred tenants.