If it is the right development

In auckland where I live for example, spreading out and building more suburbs is not the right idea. it costs a lot to build new roads and utilities to accommodate new developments that are far away from where people work, this also causes more traffic. We need to be like Europe, have a city boundary and build up in the city. But we must also keep our parks, green spaces and heritage houses and neighborhoods. we dont need to demolish mt eden and build a concrete jungle. there are plenty of places, mainly along main roads where we can build apartment buildings, such as what was done in new lynn and is being done in glen eden by the train station. there is lots of good land that can be redeveloped into apartment buildings without the need for tearing down nice neighborhoods. I am opposed to intensifying existing neighborhoods with crammed in 3 story town houses. Its much more efficient to build a high rise behind main roads shops, train stations, malls etc. Old industrial land can be redeveloped too. Neighborhoods with poor quality leaky homes can also be upgraded, such as ones in south auckland that are made of fiberlight and other poor materials. they are cheap, nasty homes that look ugly and so it makes sense to replace them. but it doesnt make sense to bull doze historic homes and beautiful suburbs with trees. We need to protect our heritage homes and trees and parks through out the city. i dont think its hard. we need proper planning so we can also live in a beautiful city. we cant just build whever its profitable to squeeze in an ugly house, and chop all the trees down. we want to be like europe. have housing but also nice parks and heritage buildings.