Was thinking about this point from an article I was reading today.

For example, how do we explain why, in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower tragedy in London, more conservative commentators were calling for more comfortable and home-like public housing, while left-wing writers staunchly defended the populist spirit of the high-rise apartment building, despite ample evidence that the majority of people would prefer not to be forced to live in or among such places?

The left is concerned with density for understandable reasons, but it is possible to have pretty good density without high-rises anywhere (see Paris for an example). But with people, subjects of deep concern tend to become a religion. The left’s religion in many areas is austerity whether it makes sense or not. To many of those on the left, if you’re not suffering, you’re not sufficiently committed to the cause of sustainability or helping the environment. It doesn’t matter if suffering is actually helpful, because the austerity and deprivation itself become the proof that you’re doing the right thing.

This is largely the explanation for the support of less-than-optimal living conditions like Grenfell over better ones like Paris or Barcelona.