• Captain Aggravated
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    This isn’t how this would work. You’d get 100 houses, or 100 high rises.

    • jarfil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why not 50-50. Then 90% of both high rises and houses can go derelict because there are not enough people capable of paying for them.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s dumb as fuck. It’s a comparison of 100 homes vs 100 homes. Not 100 homes vs 1000 homes.

      • Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.worldOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is something I’m seeing A LOT in this thread, this NIMBY notion that if we just refuse to build housing that the rest of the population needing housing will just poof and disappear.

        There are 8 billion people on this planet. We can either choose to build sprawl-for-all and destroy the planet, or we can build denser, more walkable, more transit-oriented cities.

    • Patches
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      No we would just stop building at 100 population. Everyone else can then fight for the increasingly rare living space. Just like real life.