Right, but the experiment was in an actual, literal cage, right? With no ability to walk outside to get groceries or stroll through the park.

So long as we're not cramming people into Hong Kong's cage homes (which only happens because of a thoroughly fucked housing market in Hong Kong), I think our efforts should be spent on making there be abundant housing supply -- particularly of dense, walkable urbanism -- so that the most economically vulnerable amongst us aren't left with no other option besides horrible, inhumane conditions.

Essentially, if we unfuck our housing market by legally allowing development denser than ultra low-density sprawl, there's no reason to think the market can't decide what level of density people are comfortable with. That is, if the poorest among us have enough money, and there are ample housing options available even at the price level affordable to them, too-dense development will disappear of its own accord from pure market forces. After all, if you feel cramped and miserable, and you have the means to leave for someplace better, you will.

But if we don't legalize density, people will end up crowding themselves in with too many roommates, with abusive partners or overbearing family, in wholly inadequate quality housing, or just straight-up homeless.

Because if we set out at the onset to dictate what constitutes "too much" density, well, many of the commenters in here are of the opinion that even rowhouses are too dense. If we empower them to decide what constitutes "too much" density for the rest of us, we'll end up with the laws we currently have on the books. The very laws that cripple the economy and exacerbate inequality. This will just create the conditions we have now, where a housing shortage and widening inequality push people into really sub-par living arrangements.