4 ms·

You do know that land cannot be moved, right? Were the geographical confines of the post lost on you? Places outside OP's city are irrelevant

by glibgil 10y ago

WillPostForFood 10y ago
Land doesn't need to move, people do. Geographical confines aren't walls. If you choose to live in a highly desirable location, it is going to be expensive. If it bothers you, deal with the tradeoffs of moving. If you don't like the tradeoffs, understand you are making a choice.
- lr4444lr 10y ago
  It never ceases to amaze me how many people mistake market trade-offs as deliberately engineered hardships (often by a cabal, in a kind of morality play) despite over 150 years of economics as a formal discipline explaining these emergent phenomena, albeit imperfectly. It's almost akin to possessing a pre-scientific belief in the thundering skies representing a god's wrath
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    It never ceases to amaze me how many people mistake political will for market trade-offs. Do you think we can't build tall apartment buildings with elevators in the vast majority of the United States, or do you think we pass laws against it because we prefer, for some reason, that even our cities should be basically suburban?
    - lr4444lr 10y ago
      "Just build up" is not a simple, problem-free solution. The physical (gas, water, waste removal, transit capacity, etc.) social infrastructure (schools, police, hospitals, etc.) and more intangible desirables of urban planning (noise levels, green space, continuity of neighborhood design) don't just magically expand to fit the density. Maintaining the quality of life that will keep property values at least relatively stable (and thereby the tax valuations to maintain everything) does not necessarily rise linearly with the number of people you add, and when you have preexisting inefficiencies to work with when the original design wasn't done with the record urban population rates we're seeing now in a modern standard. There are plenty of urban slums around the world where people have space to live, if you can call that living. Now that's an extreme, but if you want to forge ahead and sacrifice some quality of life for everybody by upzoning, don't forget that the preexisting tax base also usually has the greater resources to move. That's not to say we should never build, or find innovations and consider incentives to make urban living more accessible, but let's not pretend that easy answers without significant costs that others will tolerate idly while legislation eats into their self-interest.
      - jrs235 10y ago
        Some people are also unaware that "just build up" isn't possible in some places due to geography. The downtown area of the city I live near can only support buildings between 6 and 10 stories tall. This is because solid bedrock is several hundred feet below ground. The buildings foundations aren't built on solid bedrock (which taller buildings absolutely need).

You do know that land cannot be moved, right? Were the geographical confines of the post lost on you? Places outside OP's city are irrelevant

by glibgil 10y ago

You do know that land cannot be moved, right? Were the geographical confines of the post lost on you? Places outside OP's city are irrelevant

WillPostForFood 10y ago

Land doesn't need to move, people do. Geographical confines aren't walls. If you choose to live in a highly desirable location, it is going to be expensive. If it bothers you, deal with the tradeoffs of moving. If you don't like the tradeoffs, understand you are making a choice.

lr4444lr 10y ago
It never ceases to amaze me how many people mistake market trade-offs as deliberately engineered hardships (often by a cabal, in a kind of morality play) despite over 150 years of economics as a formal discipline explaining these emergent phenomena, albeit imperfectly. It's almost akin to possessing a pre-scientific belief in the thundering skies representing a god's wrath
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  It never ceases to amaze me how many people mistake political will for market trade-offs. Do you think we can't build tall apartment buildings with elevators in the vast majority of the United States, or do you think we pass laws against it because we prefer, for some reason, that even our cities should be basically suburban?
  - lr4444lr 10y ago
    "Just build up" is not a simple, problem-free solution. The physical (gas, water, waste removal, transit capacity, etc.) social infrastructure (schools, police, hospitals, etc.) and more intangible desirables of urban planning (noise levels, green space, continuity of neighborhood design) don't just magically expand to fit the density. Maintaining the quality of life that will keep property values at least relatively stable (and thereby the tax valuations to maintain everything) does not necessarily rise linearly with the number of people you add, and when you have preexisting inefficiencies to work with when the original design wasn't done with the record urban population rates we're seeing now in a modern standard. There are plenty of urban slums around the world where people have space to live, if you can call that living. Now that's an extreme, but if you want to forge ahead and sacrifice some quality of life for everybody by upzoning, don't forget that the preexisting tax base also usually has the greater resources to move. That's not to say we should never build, or find innovations and consider incentives to make urban living more accessible, but let's not pretend that easy answers without significant costs that others will tolerate idly while legislation eats into their self-interest.
    - jrs235 10y ago
      Some people are also unaware that "just build up" isn't possible in some places due to geography. The downtown area of the city I live near can only support buildings between 6 and 10 stories tall. This is because solid bedrock is several hundred feet below ground. The buildings foundations aren't built on solid bedrock (which taller buildings absolutely need).