[pbourke]

> I find it a little odd that the assumption is that single family homes are somehow always superior.

“Superior” is a value judgement. I think “preferred” is closer to the mark. People like single-family homes and they go to great lengths to buy them and deal with the externalities of living in them (commuting, maintenance). As the externalities lessened (broader acceptance of working remotely), SFH became more valuable in the last two years.

> It’s not true in New York.

There are great swathes of lower-density housing in New York and its surrounding region. NYC is an outlier on account of its geography and place in the economy.

> Perhaps we can engage with the material without insulting the people behind it. It’s not exactly a compelling argument.

I think it was an appropriate way to engage with an article that takes “people would rather live in mixed-density neighborhoods than single family homes” as its premise. The revealed preference of the entire post-WW2 era in North America is mostly the opposite of this assertion. In general, as society has gotten richer more people have looked to own single family homes.

[Apocryphon]

> The revealed preference of the entire post-WW2 era in North America is mostly the opposite of this assertion.

But with the rise of climate change, ever-growing traffic and commute, urban sprawl, and expensive housing, things are starting to shift in the other way. This narrative does not exist in the vacuum, it's been over a decade of Strong Towns, walkability, more bike lanes, millennials not owning cars, and other assorted trends pushing against the postwar status.

> as society has gotten richer more people have looked to own single family homes.

And society's purchasing power has not exactly risen in line with housing costs, especially since 2008.