I feel like you are trying to draw a false equivalence in both directions to create a loaded question. Obviously the parent is comparing housing of approximately similar value, with different densities and local amenities. My answer is neither: I don't want to live in and maintain a massive mansion nor have to drive 20+ minutes to do literally anything in Bal Air. I'm also not interested in living in apartments which are often not representative of the advantages of urban living because they are frequently built away from transit and business districts.
would you rather live in poverty or be wealthy enough to afford one of the most exclusive neighborhoods in Los Angeles? lol
A better comparison might be: would you rather live in a 4,000 sqft mcmansion in Santa Clarita or a modest 1200 sqft 3 bed 2 bath condo in Santa Monica?
> would you rather live in poverty or be wealthy enough to afford one of the most exclusive neighborhoods in Los Angeles?
What's that rhetorical question even relate to? Will increasing housing supply somehow make everyone more wealthy? The OP article claims not, and that's because that stock is going to rent-seeking investors, not buyers.
> A better comparison might be: would you rather live in a 4,000 sqft mcmansion in Santa Clarita or a modest 1200 sqft 3 bed 2 bath condo in Santa Monica?
Long Island vs condo in Manhattan wasn't really on even footing either.
That is purely subjective. I would rather live in a condo in Manhattan than a single family home in Long Island.