They’re illegal because people vote for representatives who makes them illegal and show up to city council meetings to petition for them to be illegal.
Existing areas in that style tend to be expensive, but are often (at least where I’ve lived) some of the most NYMBY areas in a city. They like the benefits their density has brought, but won’t tolerate the lot next to them getting one iota more dense.
> They’re illegal because people vote for representatives who makes them illegal
Yes, but that's not because nobody wants to live in them. It's because a loud subsection of the people that already own single-family homes there don't want them built.
You seem to recognize this. That's different from saying "Americans don't want to live in this sort of housing".
Ah sorry! That’s fair - I understand what you’re saying now. That said, I’d argue that this is a bit of people wanting their cake and to eat it too. They want a contradiction - to be close to everything (so they can walk places and be in the middle of the action), but also far away from it (so they have privacy and room). So - It’s true to say that people want density, but also true to say they don’t.
The people who show up to city council meetings and pay attention to local politics are a tiny minority. It is not a stretch to believe that they do not represent what most people want.
Is that because they don't prefer that design, or because protecting the price of their house is so essential to their long term financial stability that they'll block literally any policy, no matter how good, if it threatens their house price?
Existing areas in that style tend to be expensive, but are often (at least where I’ve lived) some of the most NYMBY areas in a city. They like the benefits their density has brought, but won’t tolerate the lot next to them getting one iota more dense.