During the 2008 housing crash/crisis, the question came up about what the value of a house actually should be. My response was that the value of a house lies in whether or not it puts people where they are useful to their own future and the future of that place. The problem with R1 zoning is that it separates people too much from living and usefulness. They drive to jobs, they drive to parks, they drive to the city for entertainments, and their children have to be transported to school (far too much now by personal vehicles). On top of that, the work they do is not useful to the place or even to the planet, but only to little green pieces of paper that are manipulated in value by plutocratic market forces. Yes, we need to rethink where we put houses, but more importantly, we need to rethink what people are useful for, and where they need to be in order to do that. Land needs people, forests need people, farms need people, and most of all, people need other people rather than a personal cave to hide from the world while it burns.
Our economic model is backward (extraction), so changing how we arrange that model is not going to fix the core problem: that people need to be useful to the planet, not to an invisible hand of consumption. People with their hands in the dirt should be supported by people managing money, not the other way around.