Ah, a rag totally dedicated to harping the virtues of "urbanism" is unloading on actually liveable houses. Shocking. News at 11.
Reality: McMansions are popular because they are comfortable and provide living space for an actual family. While being NOT more expensive on a per-unit basis than tiny condos in major urban centers.
I get it, millenials got screwed by the unfortunate confluence of 2008 and by the economy finally transforming from manufacturing economy into a service-based one. They can't afford large houses, so the psychological defense mechanism kicks in: "Hey, these McMansions are bad anyway. It's good to downsize into a shoebox".
But at this point we perhaps should start answering the question: do we want cities to continue being densified into Manhattan-style concrete canyons, or should we make sure that our children can live in nice houses that our generation was not able to afford?
Reality: McMansions are popular because they are comfortable and provide living space for an actual family. While being NOT more expensive on a per-unit basis than tiny condos in major urban centers.
I get it, millenials got screwed by the unfortunate confluence of 2008 and by the economy finally transforming from manufacturing economy into a service-based one. They can't afford large houses, so the psychological defense mechanism kicks in: "Hey, these McMansions are bad anyway. It's good to downsize into a shoebox".
But at this point we perhaps should start answering the question: do we want cities to continue being densified into Manhattan-style concrete canyons, or should we make sure that our children can live in nice houses that our generation was not able to afford?