Home owners do not want lower quality of life of higher density. Unless you are a startup genius, that is for most people, ownership usually requires 20 to 30 years of uninterupted goal focused very deep personal sacrifice.
When an owner sells a house they usually turn around and buy another so no net gain until they quit owning. If you track home ownership vs stock investment stock is way better investment.
1) Is there any place in the world where population density is too dense?
2) Is there a MAXIMUM density an area should accommodate, for instance based upon availability of drinking water, or ability to contol communicable infection.
3) What METRIC should be used to justify building more homes? A metric like average cost of rent is quickly outdated and unreasonable due to inflation rising incomes, and cost to provide housing.
Would a HIGH VACANCY RATE be an indication we have enough housing?
What do you think this rate should be? For instance, “if vacancy rate is never above 5 percent for a 5 years we should build housing.”
if vacancy rate is above 15 percent for a year we should not build housing.
There needs to be an agreed upon set of metrics that objectively regulates land use, one set of voter agreed upon rules for everyone, not a system that restricts most people from adding to there house, with a
BTW, if you look at the zoning plans for most cities, you will find they have been revised in the past few years. For thise people that don’t want more housing, I want to say “that ship has sailed”
What you are seeing now is only a small percentage of what is already recently re-zoned for, like one to three percent.
For those people still fighting for more housing, lets move along and call this issue a win. Lets pay attention to the people being killed around the world in our name.