I&#x27;d say the title omits an important context. Let&#x27;s see how it looks like if I add a few extra specifiers..<p>&quot;The poor are better off when we <i>constantly</i> build <i>more than enough</i> housing for the rich.&quot;<p>The last paragraphs actually point that out, albeit in a slightly reversed manner. As long as high-end housing supply is continuously being satisfied, the more aged buildings become affordable even without 95% percentile incomes.<p>On the other hand, I do find it somewhat insulting that the figures assume a time window of 50-60 years. This kind of approach ignores a crucial externality: if it takes ~3 generations of neglect to see the problem, it also takes another ~3 to repair it. Even assuming a perfect 180-degree flip in housing, zoning and transit policies, that&#x27;s a century lost to bad decisions and blind greed. And in the meanwhile, the city is pricing itself out.<p>I&#x27;m not a historian, but I sure would like to know a bit more. Has any great city survived 100 years of exodus?<p>Dislaimer: I live in (Greater) London.