> Higher than that, by current rules, you really need an elevator[...] You're really making my case for me :) Of course there's trade-offs involved. The point

> Higher than that, by current rules, you really need an elevator[...] You're really making my case for me :) Of course there's trade-offs involved. The point of deregulation is that instead of us or some council meeting having to decide say if 4 floors, 5 or 6 is OK for a walk-up, people can just vote with their money. And yeah, I'd argue that there's plenty of people who given the choice between paying an extra couple of hundred a month and a shorter commute would be fine with walking up 1-2 extra floors. But the point is I don't need to be right. If it's deregulated and nobody builds 5-6 floor houses without elevators we've lost nothing, but if they do we've produced a lot of value for them just by getting out of their way. > I don't see the need to pack as many people as possible in the city. The city has to remain livable[...] There's plenty of European cities that are nice to live in that are ahead of Amsterdam when it comes to population density: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_cities_proper_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_cities_... > It's not really a bubble when it's based on real supply and demand. It's based on an artificially restricted supply, which is politically motivated. The city's only needing to micro-manage the market it's already ruined because it started out with intervening in it. There's plenty of cities that historically have grown in size, density and population while real estate prices have stayed level or even gone down. > Of course the Amsterdam will keep looking for places to create new houses, but opportunities for that will remain limited. I 100% agree that it very likely will stay that way. I'm only making the point that it's almost entirely an artificially created problem.