The purpose of a system is what it does. The supposed opposition of planners, a completely ineffectual and meaningless opposition that has zero effect on any policy outcome, does not change the fact that planning as a profession ends up being this means to an end.

The entire system is set up to produce worse outcomes, and the planners are the ones constructing and enabling the system.

No, they aren't. The worst outcomes would happen regardless of whether or not planners were involved. The ones to blame are the vested stakeholders (homeowners and developers), not the planners working for the city trying to fix things.

You can see the whole thing play out (comedically) on the show Parks and Rec. Real life is just a drier, more cynical version of that story.

It all looks like some cheap developer got away with something when in fact they know that old-style main streets are highly desirable and would build like that if the regulations allowed.

Also, the existence of Kowloon is a good thing. The people who live there would have worse lives if Kowloon was never allowed to build like that. They would be forced to live further away from their work, subjecting them to an hour a day on a cramped train, for example.

The wrong question: "Is X bad?". The right question: "Is X worse than the alternative if X wasn't allowed?".

So as a society we've skipped right past bad to horrid while clapping ourselves on the back as if we're doing the 'undesirables' a favor. Abhorrent.

For example, let’s say the worst homes in your area legally allowed to be occupied are currently renting for $500/mo. Now capsule housing suddenly becomes legal. They’re not going to magically cost less. Landlords already know the poorest people will at least pay $500/mo, so the capsules will cost that, and the previous worst housing would rise to $750/mo or something.

A small number of people who have the lowest incomes will probably downgrade to capsule homes, instead of the status quo of living far away from their work. So they'll make a conscious decision to trade-off living space for a shorter commute, and who are you to tell them that's not in their best interest? Forced hour-long commutes is bad for people's wellbeing, which is what's happening in the status quo.

This discussion is a bit of a tangent because most housing proponents don't care if capsule homes are illegal. All they want is for normal units to not be illegal. That will get you 95% of the way there, capsule homes is nothing more than a theoretical curiosity outside of extremely dense countries like HK.

1) safety: obviously people would not be safe in capsule hotels. This cannot be changed, and would fundamentally alter society if it became popular

2) It applies to other forms of safety. Collapse safety? Why? It's cheaper without (and the state will have to pay most damages anyway). Medical safety (e.g. anti-mold regulation)? Why?

Such a policy will not drop prices, except the sticker price and will cause untold misery in society. We can discuss individual measures, perhaps, but not that a lot of these price increasing really contribute to society.

As a matter of policy, I am in favor of safety regulations. If that makes capsule dwellings illegal then so be it. We can solve the housing crisis without resorting to capsule dwellings.

While you're not wrong in many cases, you do have to be careful with making this sort of rubric your universal rule. It can trap you in a local maximum that is vastly inferior to what things could be if you acknowledged that and were willing and able to accept the temporary reduction in quality to move to what is, objectively a better situation.