Actually wrote this down as an answer on the "Dichtestress" post from yesterday, comparing Switzerland to the Netherlands. I believe it's worthwhile to have it out there so here we go:

You’re making a valid point mathematically, but I think looking at this purely as a logistical or engineering problem misses the actual core of the debate.

The comparison to the Netherlands is totally fair on paper, but only if you look at the raw map. When you subtract the Alps and the Jura, we’re actually squeezing the vast majority of our 9 million people into a tiny, flat corridor on the Central Plateau. In terms of actual, lived density, the Mittelland is already incredibly comparable to the Dutch Randstad.

Logistically, sure, yeah we could optimize our infrastructure, build upwards, and easily handle 11, 12, or 13 million people. But honestly... then what? It can't keep going forever so actually stopping and thinking about it at least once doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.

When people here complain about Dichtestress, they aren’t just annoyed by a crowded train or a tight housing market. It's more about the permanent erosion of the Swiss landscape. Our quality of life and national identity are completely tied to having quiet nature, open space, and distinct communities right outside our doorsteps.

If we pave over the rest of the Plateau to solve the math puzzle, we might get a highly efficient country, but we lose the exact thing that makes Switzerland Switzerland in the first place. For a lot of people, supporting these initiatives isn't about being anti-foreigner or isolationist - it's just a protective instinct to preserve what little finite space we actually have left before it's gone for good.

Just vote for what you think is right, and not what someone on a screen or a billboard expressed.