The question of whether one form of housing development is better than the other is a red herring.
What we must ask is why we've organized cities the way we have, whether we can change how they are organized, and if we even should. That's because, let's face it, there's a form of NIMBY for both. Create more high density housing and the people with McMansions complain. Build some McMansions and the high density people cry "gentrification!" None of these people are going away, and neither one necessarily needs to lose their way of life.
The way I see it, there's too much a dichotomy between the city-life and the suburban or rural life. We might find ways to for them to better work together
For instance, although high density housing can be a good thing for many, from a structural standpoint they mostly make sense in dense urban cities and the outskirts of said cities. But why have dense urban cities in the 2020's? Why can't suburbs actually live up to the urb part?
Maybe we can actually use a lot of the vacant land we still have in America to create systems of small cities that can satisfy the needs of the many as well as the few? I don't think that there would be as much an opposition to high density development if it could be planned in such a way not to step on the toes of those who don't want to be around high density housing while still having a place for it. It would be better for policing and a sense of community.
Better yet, create networks of paths for bikes and tiny vehicles between said small cities. I mean actual bike paths, not the fake ones we paint on existing roads designed for cars. Economic opportunities could be created along those paths and make it simpler for towns to have their own cultures yet be involved with each other and easy to travel between without the hell of vehicle traffic.
I guess my thought is rather vague, but I still feel that we always end up asking the wrong questions.