Except it is not sustainable. There was a study that found that tall high density residential towers require less resources to build, but they consume more ener

Except it is not sustainable. There was a study that found that tall high density residential towers require less resources to build, but they consume more energy than suburban housing. Let us take water. California is a desert. Water is becoming more and more expensive. We are certainly rationing water per person by increasing density. The measure of ‘sustainability’ is here is to restrict consumption. China has a more sustainable rationing policy when it comes to high density because of their billion plus population. It doesn’t apply to America. Rationing in California is just out of spite and political clickbait because we insist on measures like housing the homeless in the overcrowded Bay Area. Meanwhile there is abundant water in the mid west. Are they less sustainable or living in less abundance because they don’t engage in high density sustainable philosophy? Some resources are fixed and at that point it’s a numbers game. A cake can be distributed amongst 10 people or between 100. Getting a sliver of cake instead of slice of cake is not sustainable. It is the very definition of rationing by mandate when high density becomes mandatory housing policy. It is also artificial and installed on purpose to manufacture wider and artificial housing affordability. As in: A tech worker drawing 200k cannot afford a home in the Bay Area. Because we want to build sustainable and affordable homes for minimum wage workers that the builder passes on to market rate home buyers in order to subsidize said affordable home. Sustainability doesn’t figure anywhere and is just greenwashing.