I unironically agree with this. 100 years ago, Skid Row and Bunker Hill in Los Angeles were full of SROs, boarding houses and long-term hotels. The people who lived there didn't disappear, they're just all sleeping in the street now.

I guess you never had the misfortune of sleeping in a flophouse to say something like that.

One time I had this project in Switzerland and my co-worker, who also travelled there, figured he'd save money if he rented a bunk bed in illegal (due to density) quarters.

Terrible experience, which got him fired eventually because he quickly lost steam due to having to share a tiny room with three other people.

I on the other hand moistened every Swiss Frank banknote with tears, but splurged thrice the amount on a proper room and survived until the end of my involvement in that project.

The person you're responding to suggested Single Room Occupancies, flophouses, etc. are a better alternative to sleeping rough (on the street).

You suggested that flophouses are worse than a proper room.

Both of these things can be true.

As an aside you can see why it is hard/impossible for a homeless person to pull bootstraps when a successful person can't keep their job living not-even-homeless.

The current American urbanism is from the past! The assumption that other urbanisms somehow represent a blast from the past, while 70 year old American car-centric urbanism embodies the eternal modern 'now,' simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. There are numerous contemporary urbanisms, and newer approaches increasingly tend to be far less car-centric.

The thing is, the 70-era anti-urbanism made the US the leading country.

The "modern" urbanism (flophouses, shoebox-sized apartments, 15-minute don-you-dare-to-walk-out neighborhoods) is leading only to decay of the country. Evidence: it absolutely helped to elect Trump.

Wild assertions with another wild assertion as 'evidence'