1897235234's comments

>There's a huge gulf between "single-occupancy houses" and "concrete jungles".

Not really. It isn't an acceptable drop in quality of life that I would ever be willing to take.

>Inner-city Paris

Not affordable. Most people live in high-rises in the outer areas. Also paris isn't very nice anymore anyway.

The greater good is less population or spreading out places of work so they aren't in the same location. It is really less population though, which is probably why New Zealand voted in someone who is reducing population growth. Also, moving from a house to an apartment sure isn't just aesthetics. It is a massive drop in quality of life.

No. New Zealand's most common form of housing (not "rich people") is a stand-alone house. The solution always proposed on HN is to increase density. To convert housing into apartments. Meaning the new standard in a decade will be apartments. You are decreasing the quality of life of the average person and not the quality of life of rich people, who live in a mansion with a giant yard.

Every single article about housing affordability on HN has the same comments. I don't know who actually writes these comments, but their solution is to just reduce the quality of life of people by increasing housing density. They think that somehow this idea has escaped everybody and they are geniuses for thinking of it. Everybody who doesn't want to smell other people's shit is called a "nimby", and infinite population growth is supposedly the only rational path forward.

Are the people making these comments the same people that will happily live in this situation? Are they rich people that will never live in this environment, or are they young progressives who think they want to live in a high-rise and have sex with robots or whatever despite being 20 and not knowing anything? Or are they immigrants trying to get into a country?