3 ms·

You’re basically supporting OP. OP is saying it’s not a reasonable choice right now because it’s not a good choice, and then you’re confirming his point by sayi

• dragonwriter 5y ago
  Density is the thing that makes it a bad choice. The main way of mitigating it is spending lots of money to make your own living conditions not dense, despite living in an area that is otherwise dense. That is, it is convenient to live in an area where services and amenities and the people needed to staff them are dense, so long as you personally can afford not to be packed in a tin like the rest of the sardines.
  • Manuel_D 5y ago
    No, Density is not the thing that makes it bad. Tokyo and plenty of other highly dense cities are perfectly livable. The issue at hand is that many economic centers like San Francisco are adding several times more residents than housing units. There's onerous zoning and processes by which existing residents can block new housing. There's also price controls that disincentivize housing. These factors cause a chronic undersupply of housing, making housing very expensive even though San Francisco isn't all that dense. That's why almost all the YIMBY attention is on urban areas like these experiencing housing shortages. Why would they push for more housing in suburban and rural areas that aren't experiencing chronic housing shortages? Most rural areas have shrinking populations.