[pandaman]

You could make an argument that people like traveling packed like sardines because airlines flight most people this way and it's also an expensive way to travel. However it does not follow, it's likely that people like convenience of air travel and value it more than the abysmal accommodations. To wit, the richest people travel in roomy private planes with plenty of room and the less rich go with business/1st class, also allowing more room.

Likewise, even the most expensive cities still have mansions in the middle of micro-apartments. If these cities really were valued for their density, the mansions would either be gone or would be cheaper than the surrounding dense dwellings.

[droidist2]

It's not the density directly though that people desire, it's what the density makes possible. Having a large home close to this hub of activity is what many consider the best of both worlds, and you have to be very rich to have that combination.

[pandaman]

If people do not desire density per se, they might not be desiring "not having to drive everywhere" either and that is just a side-effect of dense dwelling. E.g. the rich people living in the said mansions usually don't walk everywhere, do they now?

[nrr]

As I remarked earlier, I still feel that the analysis undertaken here is too simple and doesn't take into account, e.g., artificial constraints on supply that create perversions in consumer choice and demand.

[pandaman]

We are in agreement, I too think that "we don't have enough high density accomodations because their prices are too high" is a rather simplistic implication that is very likely false.

[nrr]

This is part of what I'm not following.

The implication you've stated, which is itself a more informal restatement of what originally started this thread, hinges on whether the conclusion "we don't have enough high density accomodations (sic)" is true. The premise "prices are too high" has no bearing on the proposition's reasoning. (At least, if you take it to be true, which I feel is the case for most people.)

Is the competitiveness of the housing market overall not an indication that we lack accommodations, let alone high-density ones?

This all said, if it actually were a converse error, taking "prices are too high" as the consequent means that the premise "we don't have enough high density accomodations (sic)" has no bearing, which seems off because, surely, there's some connection between the supply-demand model and price.

[pandaman]

I am doubting the argument from the https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31886280 which is a variant of the argument repeated in every thread about housing on HN. Namely: people do want dense housing because dense housing in the areas like Manhattan is very expensive. "Prices are too high" is the "proof" part of this argument.

My doubt is based on two facts: rich people don't go for the dense living even in these areas and nobody is building residential high raises in the cheap areas, which would have been a huge missed opportunity if there had been a genuine demand for the dense living conditions.

[nrr]

What's the economic model you're applying?

[pandaman]

I am applying the same reasoning the GGP post applies: the high price indicates desirability of dense accommodations. And I am explaining the GP's critique of this model.

[nrr]

I feel like there's some disagreement somewhere that's preventing reconciliation of what's going on here.

Does density imply micro-apartments? What's a micro-apartment? What's considered dense development?

Are we looking at this through a macroeconomic model or a microeconomic model? If microeconomic, have we accounted for everything that confounds consumer choice and consumer demand?

Given strict regulations on land use—the status quo today—is it reasonable to assume that mansions or villas within the city limits will be granted permits for denser development, whether that means interior renovations to convert them into multi-unit dwellings or razing the building and starting anew?

The analyses so far plainly seem too simple.

[pandaman]

Sorry, if "micro" is bothering you. /s/micro/reasonable-sized/ it's not the point I am making.