Maybe with the rising global water levels, living "in, around, under or on top of water" will become a more attainable possibility for a whole new range of people /s

The article acknowledges this and proposes alternatives:

> Obviously, we can’t all live a walk from the beach (or on the isle of Icaria, for that matter). But any engagement with water, even a creek, can offer a salve for our embattled brains.

Does the dishwasher count?

As I sit by my desk now, everyone else in the household already asleep, I listen to the water flowing and splashing and rumbling in the machine under the kitchen counter, and think to myself - except for occasional mechanical clunk, it really does sound like a river, or a sea (depending on what part of the program is running).

Same story here. I could not afford today to buy a house in the seaside neighbourhood I grew up in.

Wealthy non-locals “discovered” it, snatched up all the housing, and promptly formed “Stop overdevelopment now!” lobbies, leeching off the locals’ hatred of the newcomers to protect their own new-found property values by preventing any further increase in housing supply. It’s honestly just depressing.

Nothing will change until we drastically ramp up house construction. You don’t “protect” a community by keeping the buildings the same while replacing all the existing inhabitants with different, richer ones.

May I ask why you should have more right to buy a house in that town than someone else? You say 'grew up in' which implies you've moved away. At that point, you're also a non-local aren't you?

I don’t think I should have more of a right to buy a house there than anyone else, and I’m genuinely puzzled how you got that idea from my comment. I think housing should be sufficiently plentiful that everyone has the opportunity to make a home in a community of their choosing.

I got a sense from your comment, and the one you replied to that the problem was that the wealthy were buying the housing, rather that only the wealthy could buy the housing. I admit I may have read into your comment a bit much.

> the problem was that the wealthy were buying the housing, rather that only the wealthy could buy the housing

Those are actually the same problem. The wealthy can buy housing faster, more decisively than the less wealthy. They may also push out the less wealthy, simply by offering them an above market price. And as the wealthy start to buy up housing in an area, the prices start to go up, and soon become high enough that only the wealthy can buy.

So, anybody and everybody should be able to live in Monaco?

It's just unrealistic for a finite resource such as a location to accommodate anybody who could possibly want to live there. That's why desirable places are expensive.

> May I ask why you should have more right to buy a house in that town than someone else?

You should ask that question to the NIMBYs that have pulled the ladder up from under them.

"Nobody is allowed to move to this area after I did" is insane, toxic, and selfish.

It's not insane, it's quite rational as long as real estate is an investment.

> as long as real estate is an investment

And therein lies the problem.

Houses can't both be affordable, and a good investment.

And if I have to choose between people having a roof over their heads, and investors being happy, the latter can go pound sand any day of the week.

I think you misunderstood me as advocating for the system that exists; We very much agree. But as long as housing is an investment, the rational thing will remain to try to pull up the ladder behind you.

Maybe that's part of the explanation? It's just a correlation - being able to live near the coastline requires wealth which means you can take better care of your health.

Pretty much. This so called blue mind theory is just saying that rich people tend to be happy.