>between what people think will make them happy and what actually does work out to produce happiness.

People aren't all the same some like having a yard, a garden, and no people living right next to their walls.

Right, there's a LOT of rural and semi-rural places in Vermont already if you aren't a fan of cities. In particular though, we're seeing subdivisions of housing sprout up in municipalities neighboring Burlington, typical suburban developments that prey off the desire to live in/near the city but avoid the high city prices (And the high city prices stem from the fact that the city itself, already more or less "fully" developed, has no incentives to upzone and plan for growth)

For example, take this listing https://www.zillow.com/community/kwiniaska-ridge/29091765_pl...

Look at the descriptions used to sell it:

> Just minutes from the lake and downtown Burlington you have everything you need and already do.

This isn't aimed at people looking to escape the city. This is aimed at people looking to buy into the city at a lower price point.

That or it's aimed at people trying to have it both ways.

I know a couple of people like this, they claim they want to get out of the city, but also aren't willing to live more than 5 minutes from a supermarket. The result is a compromise: suburban sprawl.

Having it both ways is best serviced by cities that reduce sprawl. If you want to be where things are happening, it's right there. If you want nature, it's just outside of the city. Sprawl creates miles and miles of area that isn't nature and isn't the center of activity. It's a huge amount of infrastructure for a design pattern that has a lot of environmental downsides and doesn't help most people.

It's a local optimum. Wealthy suburbs are better than small farms for tax dollars. There's lots of demand for housing due to a neighboring municipality's desirability (Burlington, VT). Ergo, it's worth replacing small farms with suburbs that supply this demand.