4 ms·
You've misdiagnosed the cost problem. We have suburbs who have never, and continue not to be, amortizing -- they don't pay their costs in taxes. That can be p
by x0x0 10y ago
You've misdiagnosed the cost problem. We have suburbs who have never, and continue not to be, amortizing -- they don't pay their costs in taxes. That can be papered over by fees from growth when they are growing, but when they stop expanding, wait 50 years for infrastructure to wear out, and you have a disaster.
Lots of suburbs and rural America are built far too sparsely to be affordable (to the denizens; Woodside will continue to be just fine).
- yummyfajitas 10y agoIf infrastructure cost the same as it costs in Spain, Korea, China or India, thos suburbs would be paying their costs. Delhi built a metro system for the cost of 2 miles of 2nd Ave Subway track in NYC. We spend too much. That's the problem.
- x0x0 10y agoThe price/cost overruns of building the 2nd ave subway (and the large stations, which is were most of the costs went) is unrelated to the price of building roads and sewer in suburban America. Also, doing stuff in America costs more than in China or India. News at 10.
- someguydave 10y ago>Also, doing stuff in America costs more than in China or India. News at 10. Which is his whole point. Also, the suburb cashflow you are super concerned about would be fixed with cheaper building/maintenance costs.
- x0x0 10y agoThen the point is stupid. Complaining (as I think?) that it's relatively more expensive is reasonable, though I doubt Americans would tolerate the widespread death rates involved in large infra projects in some countries. As I pointed out, nothing he mentioned is relevant to infra costs of your suburbs that aren't building giant gorgeous mezzanines or stupid pretty bridges like sf.
- yummyfajitas 10y agoYes, doing stuff in America costs more than in every other country in the world, including wealthy ones like Spain and Korea. That's the whole point. If you want better infrastructure, fix that.