[wolverine876]

People, including unhoused ones and artistic ones, need to live near downtown because that's where jobs and services are, including needed social services, and transportation to the rest of the city, as well as community. In typical cities, the art galleries, museums, schools, etc. are downtown.

If you have a family and spend your time with them and at work, a home away from the city center makes sense. If you need to do a lot with people outside your home, then you want to be where the people are.

[cyberax]

Well, provide jobs outside of misery centrals (downtowns). This is coincidentally the ONLY way that will actually help housing affordability.

[wolverine876]

> misery centrals (downtowns)

What makes downtowns "misery centrals"? In most cities, they are the most expensive places to live - they are the most expensive, nicest places to live in the world. That's part of the reason we have homelessness - $1700/month in Manhattan gets you something like 225 sq feet.

There's no substitute for downtown - we can't, somewhere else, rebuild the transportation, infrastructure, buildings, services, etc. that make it central to the community (if we did, we'd be back where we started with another downtown).

Argument through condescending dismissal isn't persuasive, and doesn't prove anything.

[cyberax]

> What makes downtowns "misery centrals"?

Having to live without a backyard and in a small space, crowded with other people, and having to deal with constant traffic.

> In most cities, they are the most expensive places to live - they are the most expensive, nicest places to live in the world.

And that's EXACTLY what makes downtowns "misery centrals". An average person will NOT be able to afford a large comfortable apartment.

> Argument through condescending dismissal isn't persuasive, and doesn't prove anything.

The thing is, no city in the US managed to increase affordability by either building transit or increasing density. Not a single one.

I don't have data for all the world, but it also holds true for several European cities. Oh, and Tokyo in Japan.

[wolverine876]

It sounds like it would be miserable for you, a preference you are entitled to, of course.

At the same time, many, many people love it. In NYC alone millions of people pay astronomical rents and mortgages for the privilege of living in tiny spaces in close quarters, no yards, etc. They have for generations. And then we can add everyone in all the other cities, all over the wealthy part of the world, doing the same. As comparison, I wonder what the highest-demand suburban location is in the US and in the world, and where it ranks for housing costs?

It's not 'misery central', just something where you have a different preference.

> no city in the US managed to increase affordability by either building transit or increasing density. Not a single one.

Where does that come from? I understand we won't all have data all the time (I sure don't always), but until then, it's words.

P.S. Why are so many people using all caps in the last month or two? I hadn't seen much of that every on HN, iirc, and now it's all the rage. :)

[cyberax]

> At the same time, many, many people love it.

Sure. That's what people tell themselves. Realistically, most people would prefer to live in a less dense area, but they can't do that because there are no jobs for them there.

> In NYC alone millions of people pay astronomical rents and mortgages for the privilege of living in tiny spaces in close quarters, no yards, etc.

Exactly. And it's getting _worse_ with every generation, right now NYC is at 530 square ft. per capita, down from 700 in 1980. It's even worse for Manhattan.

> It's not 'misery central', just something where you have a different preference.

Yes, it's misery central.

> Where does that come from? I understand we won't all have data all the time (I sure don't always), but until then, it's words.

I analyzed a database of all real estate sales in the US for the last 25 years. There is plenty of other research that found similar results. The _best_ outcome was something like transient single-digit percentage decreases in rents near new construction.

I don't have the links on my phone, but you can google the "Supply Skepticism" paper from the Furman Center. It's a nice overview of the literature, and it's written from the viewpoint of pro-density (to prevent questions about bias).

[wolverine876]

> Realistically, most people would prefer to live in a less dense area, but they can't do that because there are no jobs for them there.

Do you have evidence? I have the evidence of millions of people and the demand for downtowns. Otherwise, you possibly are assuming that people must feel like you do.

[yreg]

And public transport.

[cyberax]

Nope. Building transit decreases affordability. Sad but true.

[yreg]

Maybe that affordability can be increased again by not building plumbing?

[cyberax]

You jest, but the article is proposing exactly that.

[ajmurmann]

Then let's build something that's appropriate for the location with the highest land price and not tiny shoeboxes.