Presents one of the most compelling cases RE: housing affordability, transportation costs, and density's impact on the environment. In that case, one would be considering design in terms of *form* and *policy*.
As far as design *aesthetics* are concerned, post-WWII sub-urban sprawl landscapes are regrettable. Comparing a place built in the 1920s-40s v. one built 50 years later in the 1970s-90s+ is stark.
Consider a preservation test: Whether you agree or not with local efforts to save the Victorian house on the corner or the mid-block Sears Catalog Craftsman bungalow from 1915 you get why some would be passionate about it. Imagine the so-called McMansion at the end of the cul-de-sac or the ranch that so many communities have and represent that last time period. Once the materials give out and preferences change will anyone be willing to invest in keeping them going? Consider the same for the two-story Main Street building that gets converted into ___. Hooray! How about the KFC drive-thru or the CVS? I doubt they get a second look.