I'm in the process of looking at buying a home and increasingly it seems clear that either a dense arrangement or the countryside (if working remotely) are preferable to the burbs, where you get high costs and poor access.
HOAs are primarily to blame for the high cost and poor access of suburbia. Multiple gated communities all each attempting to create their own "privately-owned by the community" parks and recreation. Aside from HOA fees (which are basically taxes), the gluing together of all these private developments makes "freedom" and walkable / public access an illusion. Homeowners end up double paying and cities' infrastructure suffers from lack of funds.
Density is best if it is done right, but the HOA problem incentives fracture and disconnect. Thus: all public spaces in all densely-planned areas must be publicly-owned. The HOA cannot create walled gardens.
a. Without an HOA, every home is well-kept like a postcard. (possibly most desired, but unlikely to happen)
b. With an HOA, every home is well-kept like a postcard. (acceptable)
c. Without an HOA, some homes have a "redneck" or "ghetto" look. (undesirable)
d. With an HOA, every home has a "redneck" or "ghetto" look. (won't happen)
The only rational choice for the developer is "b". If they try for "a", they might only sell a few houses before somebody makes the place look threatening. That drives down the selling price for the nearby lots. The lower selling price may even increase the chance of having buyers who will also make a threatening-looking mess.
I wish it weren't so. I hate how all modern housing has HOAs. Without some very unlikely changes in the law, we're stuck with the situation.
Zoning is what prevents dense development, mixed development and all the other kinds of development we used to do in the US (not just Europe).
Here's a small example from Bend, where I live:
If you're interested in the subject, some good takes on it are the books I list here (Zoned in the USA and Zoning Rules!):
https://bendyimby.com/2017/06/12/yimby-reading/
Or, if you want to get a very real sense, the next time some apartments get proposed in your town, go to the public hearings and listen to the neighbors rant, rave, froth at the mouth and otherwise raise a hue and cry that life as they know it will not go on if the poor peop...errr, I mean apartments get built anywhere near them.
Of course, it's not just density - it's the variety of use. I used to live in South Park, San Diego and it was a wonderful neighborhood, even though it wasn't all that dense (mostly single family homes - and gorgeous ones at that). It did, however, have all sorts of retail, dining, parks, housing, and other things in the same neighborhood, so I could still get most of what I needed with a walk. Of course, houses there were not going to be affordable with the incomes we could get in San Diego, because this made it about the best neighborhood in the city.
Actually, that example is illustrative. It would be illegal to build South Park now. Partially because of zoning, but also because of parking requirements and traffic "engineering" (to use the term rather generously). All those little cottages would be surrounded by asphalt (mandatory parking minimums), not gardens, and the streets would be three times as large (gotta ram fire trucks through at 45mph after all!)
That being said, it wasn't perfect. I went to the community planning meetings (at 5:00 in the evening, so it was mostly retirees) and was usually the only person defending planned new bike lanes.
How can these both be true?
It's basically siphoning money that would be going to public infrastructure to make private infrastructure. There's also statistical evidence that people running the boards of these HOAs don't actually select the most value-oriented bidders, they reward their family and friends.
Edit sorry, old bookmark nevermind the link.