Having spent some of my life around very functional large Mormon families, I have no objection to people who can afford it having all the kids they want. But affording it needs to be clearly defined by universally shared social mores/norms as being able to send one of the kids to Harvard at your expense, if that's what they need to be the person they can be. Otherwise, it needs to be clearly defined as abusive to have a kid you can't provide for.
And, in severe disagreement with MZ, having sex without being fully aware of and responsible for the consequences is behavior that simply cannot be condoned in any way, at any level in a world of visibly limited resources. There are no records of "primitive" peoples who did not actively seek to control their reproduction - that is what is natural for humans. Promoting unlimited fertility is a bluntly political choice designed to keep the poor in their place while providing a pool of cheap labor.
As for choosing the exurbs if you have a lot of kids. Of course. Kids needs space, they need frequent unsupervised contact with the natural world. And as Cardinal says, although it isn't said very often in these fora, suburbs can be wonderful places, where that can happen.