I think "remotely habitable" is key. Humans can barely colonize Antartica. There's zero self sufficiency there, and there seems to be zero appetite for anybody actually settling there. At most, you get adventurers who'll spent a few years there, living off the teat of some research institution, only for them to return with some good stories. Moon or Mars are much more hostile to our physicality and sensibilities than Antartica. Mars will attract some adventurers, maybe initially some utopians. After an initial period of excitement, there will be zero appetite to actually colonize something as unlivable, boring or ugly as Mars.
There are network effect to infrastructure, both in space and at the poles.
No-one wants to build habitats in either b/c there are large up-front costs to building initial infrastructure. once it's there, things may change.
That said, Necessity is the mother of invention; and right now we have no reason to spend resources on developing these environs as there are plenty of more desirable habitats (e.g, nice climate w/ stunning views and wildlife), and the current trend is wanting to live near other humans in high-density cities.
Let underground habitat tech develop a bit more (100% artificial lighting replicating daylight), and planetary populations, and hence competition increase, and there may be more enthusiasm for this stuff.
Humans colonized the Arctic before the modern era. We could probably have done it in Antarctica too, if there was a pre-modern way to get there gradually.
> there will be zero appetite...
I almost completely agree. There will be very close to zero appetite. Which, over time, results in a colony :)
You can say it's an opinion, but I think you'll find it's almost universally held.
Most people would enjoy romming Mars for a few days, some would enjoy it for a few months. I think only a select few would enjoy being there for longer than that unless it dramatically changed.
