Constrained geography is an important part of shaping cities, but it's generally considered by geographers and urban planners to be an enormous positive.
Constrained geography means that, physically, you can fit fewer people within the same commuting time which means prices should go up faster given demand than otherwise. Given an external source of demand (ie: hot area for whatever reason) that seems a bad combination for a healthy city.
Hong Kong is a small, mountainous archipelago. Tokyo-Yokohama surrounds a bay on a mountainous archipelago. Manhattan is an island. Yet these places have the most skyscrapers in the world and are amongst the richest places in history on any measure.
Urban density has nonlinear effects. It relies in part on the pressure to build vertically and the ability to move many people horizontally.
Surrounded by a giant empty plain which people commute in from (as in it's population doubles during the day). And there's constant issues with wealth inequality, homelessness, living conditions for the poor, etc. Money is not the only measure by which a healthy city is defined.
I cannot imagine that Manhattan would be anywhere near as dense without the Hudson and East rivers cutting it off from the New York mainland, Long Island and New Jersey.
> And there's constant issues with wealth inequality, homelessness, living conditions for the poor, etc. Money is not the only measure by which a healthy city is defined.
What's your definition of a healthy city, and why does massive sprawl satisfy it so well?
Now you're putting words in my mouth, just because I don't agree with your extreme must mean I hold the other end of the extreme?
FTFY.
Healthy city requires density - enough density means you got most things you need within walking distance.