Sure, that would be efficient, in a limited sense. But not if you included quality of life in the calculation. Or even productivity. And mainly, it's a dubious reductio ad absurdum.
Edit: What I mean is that, if negative externalities of energy and resource use were priced in, most people couldn't afford to live in the suburbs. Or at least, not in the manner that they've been accustomed to.
Depending upon the definition of "negative externalities", this may be true for most of the developed world.
Maybe the Amish were right after all ..
Technological development is on a path to AI, I think. People have been dreaming of it for at least a couple thousand years.
You say so. Gasoline is cheap and roads need not be first class to support travel.
Better quality of life is exactly why people (especially people with children) prefer to live in the suburbs. Better schools, safer, having your own yard to play in rather than a park littered with discarded syringes and full of scary homeless people...