In reality, those developments are strikingly ugly, almost without exception. The houses are crammed together, and the designs are generally very unattractive. It need not be that way -- as the layout of older developments demonstrates. The design constraints behind "Pave and Pack" are various, but one major design consideration is indeed to maximize the number of houses within a given space.
Beyond that, standard house design (drive into garage/enter house, and the lack of useable front porch) tends to keep people out of their front yards -- it's harder to maintain a "neighborhood feel". (Having lived in newer and older areas, I know this to be true.)
Finally, the usual approach is to build a huge number of houses in a formerly rural area. Existing infrastructure is generally vastly undersized, which means that the city/county taxpayers are forced to pay for arterial development, drainage, fire/police protection, etc.
Your opinion. They are attractive enough to sell or the developer losses money.
it's harder to maintain a "neighborhood feel".
Obviously not a great concern to those doing the buying, or again the developer's houses would not sell.
Existing infrastructure is generally vastly undersized, which means that the city/county taxpayers are forced to pay for arterial development, drainage, fire/police protection, etc.
Then you should be tickled pink that the developer has maximized the number of taxpayers per acre. This creates a larger tax base and reduces everybody's share of the increase.
A little NIMBY always seems to crop up amongst those that have already "got theirs".