4 ms·
Urban condos are routinely more valuable than houses in the same city. Plenty of people do want a level of walkability and street life that is not available in
by closeparen 8y ago
Urban condos are routinely more valuable than houses in the same city. Plenty of people do want a level of walkability and street life that is not available in suburbia.
It may have been true in the midst of suburban flight that only the desperate would live in urban conditions, but it isn’t any longer. Urbanism is the premium commodity now.
- esotericn 8y agoI have commented on this below but this is a disingenuous comparison that you know that I'm not making. Obviously there are advantages and disadvantages of living in different _places_. Replacing homes with apartments is not related to that. If you could live in the exact same place, but with a house instead of in an apartment, it would be a fairly radical position to take to refuse that.
- closeparen 8y agoYes, it is. The nature of the place is determined by its density, which is determined by its mix of housing types. There is no such thing as a lively downtown bock of single family detached houses. It might be nice to have a house anachronistically in the middle of a dense area, or right on the edge of one, but it’s not geometrically possible for many people to do that.
- esotericn 8y agoLoads of London is the latter half of your comment. Most streets I've lived on have a mix of family homes, new build apartment blocks, weird split-up family homes that now house multiple individuals, etc. Apparently (at least compared to the US) we're quite unique in mixing rich and poor in this way though.
- rorykoehler 8y agoI've lived in London. The city suffers from long transit times due to poor (low density) planning. It was bad enough to make me leave. If I wanted to do anything or go anywhere not in my neighbourhood (stockwell/Brixton) or the centre it took an hour at least.