I agree too that big (detached) houses are generally less efficient whether they are in the city or countryside. However, you forgot to mention the issue of transport. People in the countryside - in big and small houses - drive everywhere. In the city people can walk to the shops or use public transport.

Also, it is much more efficient to supply people with services in densely populated areas.

Excellent article in Wired. I hated it, actually, but it's the sort of challenging stuff people need in order to get their brains firing on all cylinders.

A few criticisms;

i.
Taxing people out of their desires simply means people end up paying more for those desires and develop a(n even) greater resentment toward the government. All 'luxury' taxes prove this.

ii.
Big houses _anywhere_ are less efficient. The imbalance of emissions between urban and rural populations is an argument in favour of more affordable housing in the countryside, not in favour of the attempt to to tax people off their farmhouses and into apartment blocks.

iii.
The top-down thinking of the article suggests a weird dystopian future in which the State can demand that people live where they would rather not, and may only live in those places they want to live if their "jobs require them" to. Madness!

Taken - however - alongside McAuley's article, it seems more palatable. However the emphasis is clear; if top-down policy is to do any good, it will only be in making sustainable, enjoyable, urban living an attractive, comfortable and exciting prospect.

_Not_ by yet another tax passed by the sanctimonious hypocrites in Parliament.