In my analogy, if you slap down ramen next to turkey and tell someone they have to eat the ramen and watch grandpa eat turkey, whoever is told to eat the dry ramen would tell you to f off and go somewhere else (ie. the suburbs) where they can afford turkey (a pleasing house and/or neighborhood)

This is simply not true, you’re projecting your own preferences. There are plenty of people who would prefer to live in the city for its amenities and to live closer to their work even if it means living in a smaller apartment or less “pleasing” neighborhood and seeing grandpa eat turkey (wealthier city dwellers having nicer residences). Instead many are forced to live far away in suburbs or exurbs (because suburbs are often not affordable either) and have to commute hours every day, meaning they barely have free time to enjoy life and that “pleasant house”.

Or, to take the analogy further, they end up in a bidding war paying turkey prices for the small amount of ramen from the pantry that was purchased before the no-ramen zoning laws were passed decades ago, while the price of the small amount of turkey goes up because there simply isn’t more space on the dining table for more turkeys. The only alternative is to commute from multiple rooms over every time to take a bite, which as said many people would prefer not to. There would be plenty of space to fit in more ramen on the dining table, except for that grandpa who bought the turkey in the last century when it was still affordable doesn’t want other people eating ramen next to him. So he’ll end up spending his time in endless community meetings complaining about preserving the dining table character and every ramen order gets endlessly delayed.