I disagree about master plan neighborhoods being better. It's just way too much ownership, control, and responsibility for one developer or one period of time, usually. Imo, master planned neighborhoods are an optimistic dismissal of the idea that organic evolution of a neighborhood should be allowed to happen, and a massive bet on whatever gets built being great. Often this takes place as a huge cul-de-sac suburb with one place designated for a gas station and a few shops, or as just an isolated parcel where most of the businesses end up being franchises and people drive out to visit other places rather than shopping nearby. In the prairies, these developments build over wetlands on the outskirts where land is cheapest and it's all boilerplate garbage that the developer has decided in advance it's probably everything everyone needs. A sort of "This is where the houses go, this is where the commercial is, here's the rest of the city". Everything ends up looking pretty samey and dull.

In other cases, when it happens in a city, like in Burnaby or Oakridge, it ends up displacing in some way or another way more people than is necessary, because they have a grand vision to replace 10 blocks of housing or something.