[bostik]

I'd say the title omits an important context. Let's see how it looks like if I add a few extra specifiers..

"The poor are better off when we constantly build more than enough housing for the rich."

The last paragraphs actually point that out, albeit in a slightly reversed manner. As long as high-end housing supply is continuously being satisfied, the more aged buildings become affordable even without 95% percentile incomes.

On the other hand, I do find it somewhat insulting that the figures assume a time window of 50-60 years. This kind of approach ignores a crucial externality: if it takes ~3 generations of neglect to see the problem, it also takes another ~3 to repair it. Even assuming a perfect 180-degree flip in housing, zoning and transit policies, that's a century lost to bad decisions and blind greed. And in the meanwhile, the city is pricing itself out.

I'm not a historian, but I sure would like to know a bit more. Has any great city survived 100 years of exodus?

Dislaimer: I live in (Greater) London.