11–20 of 326 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not being able to afford a house decreases quality of life infinitely more than some increased density.
If you can't afford a house there maybe you should consider moving somewhere more affordable.
I'll be surprised if it helps a lot. Demand seems infinite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not being able to afford a house decreases quality of life infinitely more than some increased density.
If you can't afford a house there maybe you should consider moving somewhere more affordable.
With respect to quality of life, there are far denser cities with much higher quality of life.
Building more homes for the middle income families and individuals absolutely helps everyone, except landlords.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not being able to afford a house decreases quality of life infinitely more than some increased density.
If you can't afford a house there maybe you should consider moving somewhere more affordable.
That's far more humane than demanding your fellow citizens commute hours from the outskirts every day so your real estate investment performs better. If you want to live somewhere greener perhaps consider the commute for yourself?
They forget the human cost. Increasing density decreases quality of life. The people are the product of the cities in the commercial sense. The well being of the people is lost in the drive for infinite growth.
Don’t many people love cities specifically because of density and the diversity of opportunities that usually follows?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not being able to afford a house decreases quality of life infinitely more than some increased density.
If you can't afford a house there maybe you should consider moving somewhere more affordable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not being able to afford a house decreases quality of life infinitely more than some increased density.
If you can't afford a house there maybe you should consider moving somewhere more affordable.
See also: Friday's “Don’t Blame Tech Bros for the Housing Crisis” column: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/30/opinion/sunday/housing-cr...
They forget the human cost. Increasing density decreases quality of life. The people are the product of the cities in the commercial sense. The well being of the people is lost in the drive for infinite growth.
Density means a larger selection of jobs, increased variety in entertainment (ie: more likely to find something you personally love), increased selection of medical professionals, increased variety in food, ability to avoid driving commutes, kids who can self-manage without being driven everywhere, etc. To some people that's worth more cramped living, to others it's not. Quality of life is taken as a whole and not based on part of the whole.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not being able to afford a house decreases quality of life infinitely more than some increased density.
If you can't afford a house there maybe you should consider moving somewhere more affordable.