this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
102 points (94.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43419 readers
1804 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The older I get the more remote I want to live. I just want a good grocery store, a hardware store, doctor and vet in approx 10 min drive distance and I need something to charge my car nearby. Thatβs all the βcityβ I need. Otherwise I want peace and nature around me.
75% of the water pumped out of America's rock needs treatment for particulate. You're going to need food municipal water for a while if you're in America, and that is gonna limit your range from city hall.
Also. Low-density is the worst configuration for housing on a cost/benefits and land-use perspective. We left the 1950s a long time ago, so, no matter where you live we can't go back to sprawl and low density.
Bad for your water (and other infrastructure) and bad for the planet. Otherwise, enjoy!
If low density is the worst for housing cost-effectiveness, why is living in large cities so much more expensive?
Because people prefer living there and (in the US) because low density development is given legislative preference
Subsidies. Both in form of roads and home ownership incentives being focused on single family homes. The fact that renting is the primary way to live in the city seems detrimental to it being cost effective too.
I find your point about renting compelling, is there anything that could be done to improve the situation?
Housing cooperatives seem good. There have been some successful uses of community land trusts to keep prices in check too.
Better laws surrounding collective loans feels necessary for medium density too high density housing to be bought up by groups tenets. This just an issue at large for community and worker owned coops in my experience. There are some creative crowd funding type bonds out there but its not very responsive and better suited for long term plannings then seizing on need or opportunity.
Lastly there are tenet unions to at least mitigate the rise of rent and unmet obligations by land lords.
The thing I've heard is, think of how when you're a mile away from each neighbor, it's your tax dollars paying for the road, sewer, sidewalks, water, electric, gas lines, for a half mile in each direction. Initially and for maintenance and replacements. That's why a lot of rural areas just don't have sidewalks or fiber internet or sometimes they're using well water.
In a city duplex, you're paying half the utilities for like 20 feet in front of your house.
It just is more efficient to live closer together, the reason cost of living goes up is because everyone wants to live in the city and employers want that supply of workers so they try to get in or close to the city too and it's a virtuous cycle of concentration. But housing supply being what it is, and all the jobs being nearby, means housing prices go up. Still worth it to most people hence why there's still demand, but higher than living in a place with fewer jobs and amenities.