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.
![[meme] How would you rather see this land developed?](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/f6ec67a5-2636-4875-8dd4-fa5241a3083c.jpeg){kind=link}
This isn’t how this would work. You’d get 100 houses, or 100 high rises.
100 high rises 100 families!? How
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.
That’s dumb as fuck. It’s a comparison of 100 homes vs 100 homes. Not 100 homes vs 1000 homes.
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.
No we would just stop building at 100 population. Everyone else can then fight for the increasingly rare living space. Just like real life.