Wrong choices are still wrong. I'd like to move into a house with my wife, but at this rate we'll be saving for a decade to get there. With climate change we have no idea how the real estate market will be at 1.5 degrees warming.
But the flip side of that coin is local authorities that have zoning laws that allow the big and powerful builders to build pretty much whatever they want, wherever they want. Which always turns out to be high-rise condos for multi-millionaires and billionaires, most of whom have them as investment properties and don't actually live there.
You see that here in Austin, all along the river, especially downtown.
I wish we had some NIMBYism that we could actually aim at those plans for high-rise condos.
And without downtown, I don't know what your view or skyline would be of, other than an empty blue sky, of which 99.99% of Texas offers you that, if you want it.
Oh well, like you said, NIMBYism is certainly a thing.
The expensive single-family homes further up the river may take up a lot of horizontal space, but they don't ruin the skyline and since you have to dig down about as far as the building will be tall, they don't cause such massive damage to the natural surroundings.
Moreover, most of them are occupied. Most of the hi-rise condos are not occupied. They are pure empty investment properties from people who have more money than they know what to do with. If those condos came with a local residence requirement, then I'd feel a lot better about them being there.
That's normal. Median first-time homebuyer is 34, and that's for a starter house, which most people refuse to do nowadays.
I saved for a decade to buy my home in an area I enjoy, at a level of density I enjoy.
You can do the same, or you can choose to live somewhere cheaper that you can afford.
It’s your choice to live somewhere expensive, and to not want to save for a decade to get what you want.