Given how things are being consciously designed (via policies and/or lack of political action), the "people living there already" are just those rich enough to not have yet felt pushed out due to the housing crisis (but give them time). That maybe would be just life, but on the other hand you have lots of other policies that also favor centralization of job creation, development, cultural and entertainment opportunities, etc. So what gives? it's all a big contradiction (not economically, but socially)

▲

majormajor 4 days ago | parent [-]

If you want to fight the housing crisis decentralization would be a big win. So if the city is hostile, why not set up outside of it? People already in the city can commute to you; people not already in the city can move outside the city and the surrounding areas can grow over time.

If there are professionals willing to pay continually-higher portions of their salary to live in the city regardless of who they displace then why can't we find ways to build new areas they want to live in? In some places there is a huge weather or natural-feature draw that will always prop up demand, but in others there isn't. There's just a lack of imagination and effort.

	▲	j1elo 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> why can't we find ways to build new areas they want to live in? Because people want to live their lives today, while what you propose takes decades and must be a process worked on by Town Halls, not "the people". And no, it's not the same. The Town Hall of rich people who didn't yet have the need to leave, is dominated by rich people who didn't yet have the need to leave, not the people who is more affected by the excessive centralization.