4 ms·

I'm not sure I follow. Could you perhaps explain?

• pandaman 4y ago
  You could make an argument that people like traveling packed like sardines because airlines flight most people this way and it's also an expensive way to travel. However it does not follow, it's likely that people like convenience of air travel and value it more than the abysmal accommodations. To wit, the richest people travel in roomy private planes with plenty of room and the less rich go with business/1st class, also allowing more room. Likewise, even the most expensive cities still have mansions in the middle of micro-apartments. If these cities really were valued for their density, the mansions would either be gone or would be cheaper than the surrounding dense dwellings.
  • nrr 4y ago
    What's the economic model you're applying?
    • pandaman 4y ago
      I am applying the same reasoning the GGP post applies: the high price indicates desirability of dense accommodations. And I am explaining the GP's critique of this model.
      • nrr 4y ago
        I feel like there's some disagreement somewhere that's preventing reconciliation of what's going on here. Does density imply micro-apartments? What's a micro-apartment? What's considered dense development? Are we looking at this through a macroeconomic model or a microeconomic model? If microeconomic, have we accounted for everything that confounds consumer choice and consumer demand? Given strict regulations on land use—the status quo today—is it reasonable to assume that mansions or villas within the city limits will be granted permits for denser development, whether that means interior renovations to convert them into multi-unit dwellings or razing the building and starting anew? The analyses so far plainly seem too simple.
        • pandaman 4y ago
          Sorry, if "micro" is bothering you. /s/micro/reasonable-sized/ it's not the point I am making.
  • droidist2 4y ago
    It's not the density directly though that people desire, it's what the density makes possible. Having a large home close to this hub of activity is what many consider the best of both worlds, and you have to be very rich to have that combination.
    • pandaman 4y ago
      If people do not desire density per se, they might not be desiring "not having to drive everywhere" either and that is just a side-effect of dense dwelling. E.g. the rich people living in the said mansions usually don't walk everywhere, do they now?
      • nrr 4y ago
        As I remarked earlier, I still feel that the analysis undertaken here is too simple and doesn't take into account, e.g., artificial constraints on supply that create perversions in consumer choice and demand.
        • pandaman 4y ago
          We are in agreement, I too think that "we don't have enough high density accomodations because their prices are too high" is a rather simplistic implication that is very likely false.
          • nrr 4y ago
            This is part of what I'm not following. The implication you've stated, which is itself a more informal restatement of what originally started this thread, hinges on whether the conclusion "we don't have enough high density accomodations (sic)" is true. The premise "prices are too high" has no bearing on the proposition's reasoning. (At least, if you take it to be true, which I feel is the case for most people.) Is the competitiveness of the housing market overall not an indication that we lack accommodations, let alone high-density ones? This all said, if it actually were a converse error, taking "prices are too high" as the consequent means that the premise "we don't have enough high density accomodations (sic)" has no bearing, which seems off because, surely, there's some connection between the supply-demand model and price.