Really? Do we assume that people are always engaging truthfully with genAIs? If yes, why would we do that? If not, why would we assume it in this case?

This is a tired argument and it needs to die. Public services are not meant to be profitable, they are meant to be a good investment of public money for the public good.

Exhibit A: schools

Exhibit B: the US military costs 880 billions, there's no profit, should it stop happening?

Exhibit C: all public expenses, it's not that complicated ffs, public services are not meant to be profitable. Even if you're a libertarian you need some level of public budget that you fund somehow, otherwise you won't be able to "let the market sort it out", because there won't be a free market without a government to guarantee it.

This is not a weak ad hominem, you just cited one thing you could find to support your argument while disregarding the consensus that goes against it. You are responsible for your cherry picking, don't try to put the burden of proof on me.

Now regarding your question about the statements, in summary, they are either untrue or misleading. Detailed answers:
- There is no general 35,000 euro charge to move into an apartment. The Genossenschaft appartments, which are a small subset of apartments in Austria (including Vienna but not only), have a charge to get in which can be in the tens of thousands of euros in certain cases. People are queueing for these because it's still such a good deal, once you get one you're basically set for life at a very low rent in comparison to market costs (which, again, are lower than in other comparable cities). If you move out you get a refund, minus 1% per year. In case you are genuinely curious about this, it's explained here, look under "Genossenschaftswohnungen".
- Regarding maintenance: the general rule in rented apartments is that landlords are responsible for what is "inside the walls" while tenants are responsible for what is outside the walls. There are exceptions, I don't know them because it has never been an issue for me (I also have never been in one of these subsidised apartments). I once had a pipe break and ruin the hardwood floor, the landlord paid for it and I had a new hardwood floor. Other times the tiles on my kitchen floor were showing signs of weakness, the landlord paid for fixing that too. I pay for my own light bulbs and when I had to change the shower hose I paid for it too.
- As to the overall cost and how much each Austrian is paying, I don't see a point in answering that question while ignoring the context. For example, the charge to move in certain apartments discussed above is a participation to the cost of construction, so the subsidy is carried more heavily by people who actually move in these apartments. The rent paid every month also does not evaporate. I am well-travelled and I think that taxes are generally well spent in Austria (in case that is relevant, I am not from Austria). The system in place allows to have less poverty than in other Western European countries, which themselves have less poverty than places like the US. These I would much rather measure the goodness of a society by how little poverty it leads to than by how rich its richest people are. You can't ask the question of the cost of subsidies while ignoring that context, otherwise you are missing the point: public services always have a cost, they do not have to be financially profitable, they have to benefit the public. Would you say that the US military is 880 billions in the hole or that it has a budget of 880 billions? Where are these 880 billions coming from if not taxpayers? I would also find it interesting to ask how much it costs the US tenants to allow a system of predatory landlords. If it's anything like healthcare, then having regulations and taxpayer-funded social programs is actually overall cheaper than letting the market sort it out.

The best citation you could find to support your argument is from a think-thank. It That informs us of how weak your argument is. It claims to be supported by "academic studies" but fails to cite even one peer-reviewed publication. It also rants about "progressives". I rest my case.

There is no contradiction but there are implicit assumptions from you that I reject: that profit is the only driving force of investment in housing, that because people who live in NYC cannot all own their home in NYC then we should accept that homes in NYC are hoarded and concentrated into a few hands, that supply and demand is the only mechanism that is fair and functional. So you make a bunch of dogmatic assumptions then draw conclusions from that. And in case you're ready to say that rent control doesn't work, read the next paragraph.

In Vienna, rent control has been working very well for almost a century, and lots of homes have been built with public money. Yes it is suffering from the current real estate bubble, but way less than other European capitals and large cities. And landlords are still doing well financially.

That argument only makes sense if you ignore the fact that landlords are generally wealthier than tenants, and that tenants can't afford owning their home because of what landlords do to the housing market. It is an absurd market. There is a divide and the landlords have all the power. So the law needs to protect the tenants. Morally speaking, people can own two+ homes once everyone is able to own one if they choose to and work reasonably for it. That's far from being the case in 2025, even though we're talking about one of people's most basic needs and highest expense.

That's irrelevant. The point made above is that you need a car to escape in times of sudden onset disaster. I am asking if that also holds in large cities. Generally speaking, the whole discussion is I think more interesting about large cities, since it's already clear that in less dense areas you need a car anyway.

"If" being the most important word in that sentence. Because on October 7th, people weren't killed for being Jews, but for being colonisers. There is a conflict going on since 1948, stop trying to create a narrative where October 7th is the starting point and all was fine before that.

Does this still hold in large cities? If everyone tries to get out of New-York with their car at the same time, how well does that go?

In certain European cities, street parking is an issue. For car owners it's hard to find a spot, and possibly expensive (owning a car is generally expensive). And for everyone else, well cars use a lot of space. For both parking and circulating. It would be nice to reclaim that space, and some cities are doing that in certain ways like choosing certain streets to motorised vehicles. Keep in mind that public transport, cycling and walking are all popular means of transportation, unlike in the US.

Living in one such city (Vienna) I stopped having a car many years ago and haven't looked back. When I need a car, which is a few times a year, then I use a car sharing service. TFA is essentially about making car sharing more convenient, so I think it makes sense.

It probably depends on the country. For example Italy and Germany are quite recent, France and England aren't.

Don't forget asking people how they are doing with no interest in the actual answer.

If you're from the US, it's a "fashion" that is older than your country. From the cultural perspective of most places on Earth, US culture is a recent trend. Let's see how long it lasts. Meanwhile some Europeans (depending on the region) will keep kissing relatives and close friends on the cheek when they meet. It's going out of fashion in professional settings though.

US soldiers are more often than not the bad guys. Anyone outside the US knows this, and a number of people in the US also know it.