[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]

Aha! Yeah, I can agree with that.

I think the thing that people on HN don't think about or make explicit in this kind of argumentation is that there are certain amenities that folks prefer to have nearby, and they kind of miss the neighborhood for the houses, as it were.

It isn't necessarily the density itself driving the demand; it's often the reasonableness of, e.g., being able to send a child off to the post office or supermarket to run an errand. Therein lies the rub: Density tends to be a sufficient condition for enabling that.

That said, beyond a certain wealth stratum, none of this really winds up applying anyway, so it's less useful to talk about those folks would do.

[droidist2]

>It isn't necessarily the density itself driving the demand; it's often the reasonableness of, e.g., being able to send a child off to the post office or supermarket to run an errand. Therein lies the rub: Density tends to be a sufficient condition for enabling that.

Which is exactly what I said:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31891305

Saying "Well if people love their density so much, why don't rich people cram themselves in the tightest possible density" is a strawman.

[pandaman]

It is prudent to analyze behavior that is not constrained by affordability when arguing about desirability. Otherwise you can easily deduce that people (en masse) genuinely like renting, flying couch, industrially processed food, malt liquor, cars that are at least ten years old etc.