3 ms·
Yep, I don't deny that your points are currently true. I'm trying to say that a more rational system would put efficient, inexpensive apartment buildings where
by LeifCarrotson 9y ago
Yep, I don't deny that your points are currently true.
I'm trying to say that a more rational system would put efficient, inexpensive apartment buildings where they would be cheaper, and more accurately ascribe higher costs to inefficient, expensive suburban single-family homes.
It's because the system is stupid and ineffective that apartments are in premium locations and suburban housing is artificially cheap. This ineffectiveness results in arguments like the parent article where people propose that the artificially cheap suburbs should be propped up by 'merging' with the wealthier and more efficient city who would be able to afford their poor choices.
- akoncius 9y agowhy it is "artificially cheap" ? price is result of supply / demand , and if nobody wants to live in suburbs then price will also be low. I agree that police/emergency/firefighters will be subsidised by district, but for example trash services could have higher pricing to compensate longer trips to locations. same applies for water/gas services. For example my dad recently build tiny house in suburbs of one small city and he paid his own money to do some pipe works in order to have city's water supply. Same for sewage. But still pricing is lower compared to city's more central places because of prestige and comfort, so it makes sense to have cheaper pricing in suburbs. I understand what you are trying to say but it contradicts how currently market is working, because in order to make sense city's apartments should be cheaper compared to suburbs, but given that population in cities is increasing, it means demand for apartments in cities is increasing, so increasing pricing too, and then we go back to square one - suburbs are cheaper to acquire.