I live in a detached house in the suburbs and I don't own a leaf blower, have never watered the grass, cut it about once a month (and thinking of low maintenance ways to get rid of it so I don't have to own a lawn mower). So no, in fact it's not "manicured spotless lawn or literally shove everyone into apartments".

It's possible to have yards without devoting them entirely to a monocultural monocot crop. See, e.g., https://maps.app.goo.gl/95tVKVU8DAZkKTA6A for some lawn layouts that eschew grass entirely.

Quite frankly, I think such housing areas look far, far better than your typical grassy suburbia.

Not really, but suburban life should stop being indirectly subsidized.

Well, considering that it's illegal to build apartments or condos in most places I don't think you have to worry about that.

That’s a cynical interpretation. I have about 4000 sqft of garden with only about 25sqft with grass. Trees, plants, flowering plants, succulents - all of them infinitely more beautiful and low maintenance than a lawn.

That is not what GP said at all?

This is definitely not what I mean

Having a lawn and having a garden are two different things. You can have a house with property without a giant lawn. Your comment is a disingenuous interpretation of the original poster

I do agree that houses with large lawns and zero food crops are just... wasteful. I rent so I am limited to what I could do, otherwise I would just till my lawn and make almost the entire thing into garden beds.

I dislike seeing those houses that have what amount to prairies and on that grass you see just a few horses or whatever. Such a waste of arable land.