The choice isn’t binary. There is a continuous spectrum of choices between dense city vs rural distance, and most people in the us and likely other developed countries already live in places with enough populations that could be better served with more walkable transit oriented design.

I’m fine with my open space in my yard in my house, that’s still walkable to a town center and train station. The yard may be small but it’s all mine (best of all, no HOA), and it helps that I can walk to parks and athletic fields, trails. My development is at the base of a “mountain” that is wilderness and includes a three mile ridge trail.

If you want bigger yards, you might need to cycle, bus or a short drive to the town center. But once you’re there, you have everything.

But the point is that even places that are not cities can benefit from more people oriented design and off more people more advantages more sustainably, and still support a range of “space” to fit different peoples needs

If monetary is not a concern, given the choice a lot of people would love a mansion on a hill with open field without neighbour.

But a lot of people would also love a place without smelly and noisy vehicle, that they can access most facility by walking, cycling, or by public transport, and with public space to hangout with their friend who isn't antisocial.

The thing is, you can have the first one if you have money, but you will never get to have the second one near you, even if you have the money.

Awesome. By all means, live in an open space. Neighborhoods like this aren't for you and no one's going to force you to live in one.

Is anyone even talking about stopping you?

Yes. It's just you.