4 ms·
>> Plenty of people live quite well in denser environments > Very few do. So the people living in NYC, LA, Chicago, etc are not living well? That's news. Tell
by halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
>> Plenty of people live quite well in denser environments
> Very few do.
So the people living in NYC, LA, Chicago, etc are not living well? That's news. Tell me how else I'm not living.
Outside of the very core of these cities, you can live, and live well while benefitting off of all the things large urban centers provide (culturally, financially, etc).
- dragonwriter 5y ago> So the people living in NYC, LA, Chicago, etc are not living well? Not the ones that aren't making significantly above national median income, no. High income work (and even more so large acal5 capital ownership) makes it possible for people to afford to mitigate the downsides of dense living, which is why the presence of high wage work and capital returns leads to more people voluntarily accepting sense living conditions. Eliminating the choice of low-density living by reducing availability will force more people who can’t afford to mitigate the downsides of dense living into it. (We need more dense housing in places where it will relieve the problem of people being unhoused; those people already typically experience dense conditions with added downsides; but forcing people who would otherwise choose to be housed in lense-dense conditions into dense conditions is reducing the quality of life.)
- allturtles 5y agoHow will people be 'forced' to live in dense conditions? What's happening now is that people who would like to live in, say, Silicon Valley, where their job is, are forced to live far away and experience a very long commute every day. Many of them would choose to live closer at the tradeoff of having fewer square feet to live in. How is giving them this choice reducing anyone's quality of life?