Don’t be an idiot. Leftist housing looks like mass manufactured concrete and gyprock, supplemented by packed earth where appropriate, and probably some cardboard/glass/LDPS. At least for the next half a millenia or so.

Wanting to be approximately decent doesn’t overcome physics.

We can build a world where people live densly and affordably without inventing fantasy bullshit.

Fun spray of fallacies there.

Starts with Ad-hominem (plausibly/presumably projection), proceeds through a lack of a constructive argument/engagement (ignoring what I said) with false dichotomy, appeal to status quo, appeal to authority, begging the question, circular argument, ... and seems like incurious arrogant naive realism, and lack of an educated mind (as in the expression "it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting or rejecting it).

You assert "Leftist housing looks" only one way. ... So anarchist or agrarian housing are not "leftist" in your meaning of "leftist" (like it's only the one type) are not "leftist"? Sounds like circular argument, appeal to definition, begging the question, a cherry picking lie of omission, a false dichotomy, appeal to cynicism, reification (new term to me). and whatever else I missed. Gets me wondering if this is a case of "received opinion" that's not been introspected upon and scrutinised.

Perhaps for a more constructive argument, you could elaborate on what specifics of "physics" you think refute the possibility specific to my thought experiment I invited readers to imagine. Otherwise it looks like handwaving an appeal to authority to close the argument.

"We can build a world" amuses me, for the open positivity opening, and the limitation of just "world", because much of the suppressed technology that avails such vast construction overlaps with the technology that avails all space to us (not limiting us to just a world). Though the amusement is short lived with the rest of that sentence falling to the false dichotomy, and the dismissive presumptive strawman for the ending portion of that false dichotomy.

I look forward to your elaboration on the physics aspect of your counter-argument. Or better yet, your entertaining the idea in curiosity, engaging in the thought experiment, leaving the incurious cynical presumption behind, getting constructive in a "how can we" rather than a "stupid cant".

[Edit: PS, just for a fun extension to this, bouncing off a piece of an llm's dubious analysis, that I looked at after hastily churning out ^,

capitalist/neoliberal housing also relies on specific materials and technologies, yet its limitations are rarely framed as "physics" but as market failures or policy choices. Funny how ‘physics’ only becomes an insurmountable obstacle when discussing leftist or egalitarian housing. When luxury skyscrapers or McMansions are built, we call it ‘innovation’ or ‘market demand’—not an immutable law of nature. Why the double standard?

reminds of a fun idea asserted emphatically as an invitation to entertain in the recentmost episode of derp with kurp that "if communism didn't exist, capitalism would have to invent it" (paraphrased from memory ~ works better in original context/video/wording). ~ (albeit apparently using the newspeakified definition of "communism", obviously not as originally coined by anarchists at least 5 years before Marx usurped it and handed it over to the tankies, authoritarians, totalitarians, fascists etc to wield as a means to abuse us by).]

significantly harder and more expensive to build, but you also have significantly more water intrusion issues, meaning the building won’t last nearly as long and will require horrifically expensive fixes on the regular.

This sounds like the kind of argument I hear against spaceships for everybody, that's basically like "We can't have spaceships! Screen doors don't work in space!". Yeah, well, don't build them like that.

[Edit: Also sounds like people complaining about indoor plumbing, not understanding what that meant, imagining poop all over the place inside. No. We have tubes to manage where stuff goes. Ample dry clean space.]

Go build yourself a house that is a forest archology-scape,

:3

A house that is a forest arcology-scape... lol... just one house, going from horizon to horizon, with vast layers big enough to fit giant trees in... just a house? Seems more than a little opulent-overkill.

And, by myself? :3 If I had the resources, I would not do it just for myself.

Also, I did draft a small example (and even 1000 variations) of a largely self-sustaining house, using environmentally friendly materials, that would strengthen over time, and as intended to be lived in would increase in capacity to produce food and energy over time, and I was enslaved to do this design work while at my worst health, under promise I'd be put in it, if I'd only design a house fit for my needs, then, after much blackmail, slavery, and torture, they defrauded me, and built a design that inverted every key design element for my health, turning a healing home into a torture box, and what's worse, it cost them at least twice as much. ... I still don't really know why they did that. Can only presume some kind of sadistic narcissistic Munchhausen-by-proxy. Gets me wondering how much more human potential is being squandered for utterly insane reasons. By this worse-than-Sisyphusian task, I have envied Gregor Samsa. ... And I shall recover enough health, and build it properly, and more, yet.

Making everything a forest archology-scape is a great way to make housing even more scarce and expensive.

You're kidding, right? That's insanely farcical. Not even funny. If we've availed the means to build forest arcologyscapes, you think this makes housing building more scarce and expensive? I would love to hear your reasoning behind that, correct or incorrect. I wonder where your're presuming screen doors. Like... concrete? LOL. Or perhaps unimaginatively in cognitive dissonance presuming aspects of the current economic paradigm would persist along side the deployed ability to construct vast linked forest arcologies...?

Also, just the same as we don't have to increase the carrying capacity of earth into the hundreds of trillions, nor fill that capacity, and that's just an example to illustrate some of the headroom we have with proper resource management, we don't have to make everything on earth a forest arcologyscape.

Anyhoo, please don't be put off by my reflexively scoffing incredulity, and do elaborate on how "Making everything a forest archology-scape is a great way to make housing even more scarce and expensive". You might be right. I wouldn't want to be barking up the wrong tree. (Pun not intended, noticed, and did nothing to avoid.)

They are designed with productivity in mind, much like capitalist architecture, they aren't designed to be liveable.

Yeah, I know. But these are exclusive to America and the underdeveloped world, and we're not defending that. It also has similarities with it. Europe has good housing (Though unaffordable) that isn't suburbia, but modern day commie blocks aren't exactly affordable in Russia either.

Yeah, they're both pretty crap compared to what they could be

Funny story, suburbia is systemic government slop that destroys individuality, too.

I know this, I used to live in a Stalin era house in Moscow. But Stalin's Russia had a big problem with housing, only Khrucshev fixed it. All of these things may come as a shocker to an American, but they're quite common in Europe. And it wasn't that easy to get a house, you had to wait in line for half your life and the system didn't work with a bit of corruption, like centralized systems always do. Comparing the USSR to western countries is especially bad, because western countries had no regard towards workers, and if we look at the same timeframe we could say they advanced their housing capabilities equally.