> But again, we're talking about reality and compromises. Okay, now this I'll agree on. Apartments are compromises. > 0 to hyperbole You might have confused

> But again, we're talking about reality and compromises. Okay, now this I'll agree on. Apartments are compromises. > 0 to hyperbole You might have confused a thought experiment with hyperbole. I'm not saying the hypothetical is reality. Compromises (your word) are by definition not the ideal. It would be strange to prefer the compromise, or to not be just a tiny bit 'sad' about having to make it. > You're acting like a 12 year old. Of course. You know when the ad hominems start you're definitely conversing with an grown-up. Again, what you're reacting to is another thought experiment meant to tease out what your beliefs are. > if you want the best facilities in any given area to be easily accessible I also agree that density can make certain important amenities closer, like food stores, and medical facilities—also 20 flavors of cafes and microbreweries in walking distance. They also increase congestion making those amenities not as close as they seem, and gardens are harder to get to. (And yes, lifts factor into this. They take time to reach you, to take you ground floor. They are also sometimes out-of-order, and this is tragic in a mid-rise where this happens often enough to be a problem and there's little redundancy. Limited passage is also a huge problem in an emergency situation, particularly for people with mobility issues. etc. etc.) > The financial math for that only works with mid to high density. But... to bring it back to the OP - we're talking housing cost. That is, regular people, buying somewhere to live, in a way that eventually unshackles them from paying for shelter. Cities are overburdened. I've noticed a lot of SV and NY FAANG types get triggered by this, and blame the NIMBYs, but not without considering their own culpability. It's the 21st century, most of the overpaid service workers don't really need to meet face-to-face to get their business done, and they could disperse, and divest themselves from their spare properties. The central thesis of the OP article is that housing cost is driven by income, and if you look at NY, which is basically SV + density in terms of high-paid service workers and skyscrapers, and TFA seems to be right. I'll leave you the last word.