[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.