TOperson
Active Member
Hold on there. Single family dwellings on a mass scale in cities are a very new, 20th century idea. Large buildings with multiple residences (whether it's condo, rental, otherwise) have been around since the dawn of civilization. It's how most of the world's urban population lives and always has. There's nothing unproven about condos or high density living; it's mass detached housing that has no precedent. And its costs are still not fully known.
I suppose you could make an argument that living in skyscrapers is a relatively new idea, but not really any newer than detached houses for the masses.
The only reason that anyone is "anti condo" is because our society has convinced itself that detached housing is the good and natural way of living.
That's the ONLY reason to be anti-condo?
Your comment is all over the place, historically. Strata-title properties are an even more recent invention than mass suburbs, and the full implications of having so many of them are still being discovered. It's early days yet. So be careful defending condos.
Strictly speaking, living in cities is not the norm for human beings. Living in nature, in some form of hunter-gatherer tribe/clan, is the norm for human beings. We did that for far longer than anything else, and we have the same brains and bodies now as we did then. And there is a strong argument to be made that we & the biosphere would have been better off sticking to that way of life. So condos vs. suburbs v. row houses is a useless debate from that perspective.