Accepting advice is one thing, but does it really help to basically be told to scrap a plan and start over? If anyone bothered to read Eric's bio, he's not new to the hobby or OGR having joined in 2008 and built the O-Scale layout he just tore down at his parents home. It was 8'x16' and modeled after the regions he grew up around: Pittsburgh mixed with the Shenandoah Valley. I take his effort at face value, that he likes a lot of track, he likes to run several trains and most of the layout will be urban landscaping. I've asked several questions about his design with the goal of making it better while not foisting my ideas for the space on him.
And why not ask if he's considered reducing the amount of track? Or how about offering an example of what is meant as it applies to the design being discussed? I don't see how it helps to be told that someone prefers less track and more buildings. Balancing track and landscaping is a worthy goal, but how could his design be changed to accommodate that goal? Me? While I prefer a lot of track over landscaping, I'd probably take out 1 of the 2 Red lines to move things around a bit and free up a little real estate. Then I'd see if using all O72 curves would work, but as Eric said, converting the current design to O72 curves only adds to the number of joints and increases the potential for electrical issues. But at least that suggestion was constructive IMHO.
As for John's comments, old timers here have seen them before, but new members haven't, so his ideas should be considered. However, they remind me of some of my teachers in high school who'd simply look at a term paper and tell me to start over with a similar list of generic suggestions. 
Unfortunately, that was never very helpful then and I'm not sure how helpful it is now, particularly for someone who is not new to the hobby, obviously has some talents to do so well with the Atlas software and offered a design trying to use the track and buildings he already has from a previous layout. I think Kevster and RD hit the nail on the head. When I first joined this forum, I faced similar comments and almost gave up on the forum. Then I found folks like Carl (moonman) who rarely suggests scraping a design, but tries to help make it the best it can be by offering examples while asking questions to perhaps lead the OP in different directions.
Hopefully, Eric will be back to share his thoughts based on all the comments. I tried playing with horseshoe and around the room designs, but that proved difficult without knowing more about the space; walls, door, etc. And while some perhaps don't see a theme (purpose), I see a theme very much like the trains I see around Phoenix. I see trains coming and going from the reversing loop, dropping off and picking up cars around town. Phoenix doesn't have any industries per se, so that's pretty much what happens here, trains simply come and go from California to the west and elsewhere across Texas and New Mexico from the east. Not every layout needs a coal, oil, lumber or other industry to be enjoyable. I see urban passenger service layouts that would bore me to death. Some of them have been featured here and in OGR and no one bats an eye at the lack of industry, etc. They accept that passenger service is a valid theme, so why not accept the same from someone who seems to be basically modeling a through-point urban area. I have to believe there is a lot of freight traffic through Pittsburgh and other cities that don't relate to a local industry like coal, oil, gas or logging.
But then again, maybe I'm all wet and Eric hasn't given any thought to any of this and is just "arranging track".
