I thought of replying, thought better of it. But it's true that you can get a lot of density from low rise buildings. My old neighborhood of 100 year old two story town houses is about 18,000 people per square mile. Friends of mine with older kids just let them roll around the city. There's a lot to do.
My take on the bad thing about sprawl and suburbs is the amount of time and driving needed to get to not sprawl and suburbs. And when there was 'the city' and 'the suburb' living in 'the suburb' was 'nice'. Now that it's all suburbs and a city jammed with traffic from the suburbs, nothing is that nice.
I don't understand. What would your reply have been? Rayiner posted an image from a high density part of Lakeview, which is an inner urban neighborhood of Chicago, about a mile further from the (significantly larger) commercial core of Chicago than 16th and Mission is from 2nd and Market. I could give you pictures of the same neighborhood with mixed 2-3 flats and single-family homes on streets with total tree canopy and parks at the end, and Lakeview is one of the more urban parts of (residential) Chicago --- go to Avondale or Humboldt Park and and find more parks, more trees, and smaller houses, all in inner ring neighborhoods.
What you've described would be the experience of living inside the Loop in Chicago, amidst class A high-rise office space. People do this! But they actively select themselves into it; by far, most people in Chicago live in residential neighborhoods that read as such, are close to the heart of the city, and don't respond at all to your description.
My take on the bad thing about sprawl and suburbs is the amount of time and driving needed to get to not sprawl and suburbs. And when there was 'the city' and 'the suburb' living in 'the suburb' was 'nice'. Now that it's all suburbs and a city jammed with traffic from the suburbs, nothing is that nice.