It has nothing to do with the inhabitants.
It's about the ugliness of these kind of buildings and everything that goes with increased density (traffic, street parking etc.)
No, it frequently does have to do with the inhabitants. That's why you saw Forest Hill homeowners kill an affordable housing development because "the new development would house 'severely mentally ill' and 'severely drug addicted' people" [1].
[1]: http://www.sfexaminer.com/city-pulls-funding-150-unit-forest...
You don't like the 'look' of 'ugly' building? I guess you better save up for the neighboring lots.
You don't like it when some of those houses are replaced by an apartment complex.
What is there not to understand?
He didn't tell anyone what to do. What are you so upset about?
No, they don't. All homeowners don't have the same utility function. Not living near people of different socio-economic strata is a very important factor in some people's utility function.
> When the only people who can afford to live within 40 miles are senior software engineers, surgeons, hedge fund quants, corporate executives, and large landowners, the whole community becomes a fake and lifeless place.
The features you see as “fake and lifeless” are what many people actively desire and seek out. Aesthetics are highly subjective.