At the end of it, we live in a world where every bit of profit matters more than earning slightly less and having something better looking.
I mean let’s compare Los Angeles County vs Greater London:
4,058 sq mi vs 606 sq mi
Density 2,100/sq m vs 14,550/sq mi.
I mean the difference is insane! And ignoring the towers springing up all over London because of greedy developers, London doesn’t feel all that cramped or as if there’s concrete everywhere.
US cities need better public transport and more dense areas. Leave the rest to nature!
You need to build systems where people trying to maximize profit isn't a problem. It's not something we've completely figured out (see: externalities)
Ironically if greedy developers got their way in the US we'd have more low or no-parking buildings, as evidenced by the fact that they weren't build "enough" (whatever that means) parking until the law forced them to.
What's wrong with people building things that others want to buy?
Plus, I don’t think housing should really be left to the free market. This is the UK after all, social housing is one of the best things we’ve ever done (IMO).
I.e. the article isn't credible.
A quick search would’ve shown you who the author of the column is.
Not sure I understand?
Edit: Anyway, the poster I was replying to was making the point that these towers are alleviating demand and subsequently pushing prices down, which is not happening.
If I have a market of 10 dumpy old cars, people will pay X for it. If I destroy 1 dumpy old car and add 2 brand new cars, people will pay more for the new cars (like your new building) but the dumpy old ones will be slightly cheaper.
I.e. relative vs absolute.
This research shows that there’s an average of 1.5% price increase per floor. Care to share a counter-claim source?
Also I do hope you know the context of my posts relate to the UK market?