Perhaps, but you also need to consider:

- transport to work / school / hospitals / entertainment

- food distribution

- sewage

- electricity

- emergency services coverage

- etc…

I don’t have any hard stats for you but my background reading has suggested these are significant.

> Nature, to my point. Recall that you're the one arguing that suburbs rather than agriculture is threatening nature

Yes, because we could be rewilding, creating new national parks etc. but instead are building suburbs. We can also replace existing suburbs on longer time-scales.