One thing doesn’t mean the other. See Hong Kong and Tokyo.

> Have you tried living in the dense cities like Mumbai, India or Manila, Philippines?

I've lived in Hong Kong, which is a similar order of density, and which I loved; it was a feeling of being vibrantly alive that's hard to duplicate in a more spread-out environment. Also spent a decent amount of time in Mumbai and enjoyed that - though I might not have if I were one of its poorer residents. Would it be worse than being poor in a village? Not sure.

> It's quite clear that with population density, trash output also increases and is harder to manage.

You're saying that 10 people per km2 produce more trash each than 5 people per km2? What's the mechanism at work there? I'd think denser cities means smaller houses and therefore less room for spurious stuff.

First, no one can force you or anyone else to live in a dense urban area. In fact, the denser the urban core the more less dense options right outside the city core for people such as yourself. Second, you are in the minority. Dense cities are dense for a reason: far from being anxiety-provoking, many people find urban areas very desirable place to live.

I left the city for the country and ended up clawing my way back in. Cities, especially dense, walkable ones, are wonderful. Better still if they remove cars.

> Everyone I know who left a dense city never wants to go back

Okay. I don't know who you know but it doesn't sound like the people that I know.

> And worse for the people who live there. I get anxiety just thinking of living in a dense city.

After having lived in some small towns, I get anxiety thinking about not living in a big city. Different strokes. As it turns out, most people in most countries do choose to live in cities.

Lawns are a Veblen good, like Louis Vuitton and Christian Dior handbags. That we don't see them as ostentatious the same way is a matter of culture. By all means, people should live where they want to live; urban, suburban, rural. But let's be honest about things.

My wife and I bought a house a in the suburbs and both of us badly want to move back. So now know someone who left a dense city and wants to go back. Being able to walk places is a luxury we won't overlook again.

> doesn't make it any less of a luxury good

That's not what Veblen is. A Veblen is better the higher the price, and that is not correct for lawns. A lawn doesn't get better if the cost of the lawn is higher.

A lawn is better simply for existing, which makes it a standard good.

And you can do that with a cheaper watch also. That makes in a Veblen, but a more expensive lawn is not a better lawn. So a lawn is not a Veblen.

Not if you enjoy gardening.

A Veblen good is something for which demand goes up as it gets more expensive, not for the same item. A Rolex isn't the same as a Casio.

Obviously. And my opinion is lawns are expensive designer patches of dirt. Like a Rolls Royce or a Bentley. Really nice, and there's a whole industry surrounding them, and a whole lot of culture surrounding having one but ultimately problematic for society if everyone has to have one of their own. Which comes to the part where there are facts. A house with a lawn takes up more space than the exact same home without a lawn. Adding the lawn increases the footprint of a house which increases size and drops population density, which makes services more expensive because things are simply further apart. No one has to agree with my opinion that lawns are a luxury good, but it is very expensive for everyone to think they want one.