4 ms·

Granted I only skimmed the article, but it seemed rather myopic to me. Why is the "dream home" assumed to be in an urban/suburban area? Why not in a small town

Granted I only skimmed the article, but it seemed rather myopic to me. Why is the "dream home" assumed to be in an urban/suburban area? Why not in a small town or rural area? In January 2018, we moved back from Charlottesville, VA (which itself isn't even "urban") to Harrison, AR. I was able to buy a five bedroom, two bath home on a half acre in a quiet neighborhood for under $125k. My wife and I are beginning to put together our requirements for our next home, which will likely be a bit further from other people, outside city limits, and likely be on 5-10 acres. The cost will till be far less than even a three bedroom townhome would have been in Charlottesville.

lazyasciiart 8y ago
Because 80% of Americans live in urban and suburban areas.
matt4077 8y ago
Almost by definition, people prefer to live in dense areas. In terms of prescriptive advice, high-density housing reduces urban sprawl. If you can convince a third of suburbia to change to denser housing, commute times for everyone would be cut in half. Vast swaths of land could also return to farmland or nature preserves. So even people who personally prefer to live "just outside the city" should advocate for denser housing. When the city builds up, everything moves towards the center. I just measured the distance from city centre to the countryside for two cities of about equal size: Hamburg (Pop 1.5 mil): 8mi Houston (Pop 1.8 mil): 22mi (I chose these because LA and Chicago have coastal layouts which aren't comparable. They also connect directly to other urban areas which for the purposes of this exercise should be considered as "farmland". Or you could add their respective populations which would further amplify the difference)
- epistasis 8y ago
  > So even people who personally prefer to live "just outside the city" should advocate for denser housing. When the city builds up, everything moves towards the center. Thanks for making this point, so many people vociferously object to any density anywhere. Nobody is being forcibly relocated to dense living, but people are being forcibly denied the option of dense living. It's similar to transit and traffic: though other people taking transit helps drivers encounter traffic, far too many drivers will attack transit because it's "not something they use." Realizing that other people want different things and that those different things might help you with your own wants is a complicated topic for public discussion.
notJim 8y ago
The rural lifestyle you're describing has a much higher ecological impact than an urban lifestyle. And many people now, myself included, prefer a lively city where I meet and see lots of people, rather than the isolation of rural life.
esoterica 8y ago
The article was focusing on the environmental impact of different living situations, and rural living is horrifically environmentally unfriendly. It would also be financially untenable if rural areas weren’t massively subsidized by urban economic centers. If you had to pay for the true cost of building and maintaining the infrastructure you use (which would be amortized over very few people due to the low population density) you wouldn’t be bragging about how cheap rural living is.
- taborj 8y ago
  My friends who have their own well and septic, and only pay for electricity from "the grid", would be very interested to hear how the folks in urban environments are "massively subsidizing" their home and property, and how they're not paying the "true cost" for building and maintaining their property. Related, I looked at a house that had a co-op for water. It was $25 a month and controlled completely by the homeowners, compared with the $100+ I'm paying for water in town where I'm subjected to the whims of the city council. Got any evidence to back up your claims?
  - esoterica 8y ago
    How much do you think it costs per person to build a road that 50,000 people use every day vs a road that only sees 5 cars per day? You’re trying to argue that 1+1=3, I am not making a controversial or radical claim when I point out that urban areas subsidize rural ones.
    - taborj 8y ago
      Well, the road that handles 50,000 people will require a ton more maintenance, that I can assure you. Plus, rarely is the county (as it's almost always the county that covers the cost) putting in the road solely for residential use. Most of the time, the roads go somewhere that isn't serviced by another road, and the residential roads are off of those (and often paid for by the residents). Perhaps it's different where you live. But, aside from roads, what other infrastructure is massively subsidized by those in the urban areas?
taborj 8y ago
I'm with ya on preferring rural living, but I much prefer that everyone else's "dream home" be in the city. Now if we could only get a better political separation between urban and rural; right now, since the urban areas have higher population density, they effectively set the policy for those in rural areas, generally without caring much about the fallout.
- bryanlarsen 8y ago
  Rural areas are already massively over-represented in the senate because rural states tend to be far less populous than urban states and slightly over-represented in congress because rural districts tend to be smaller than urban ones.
beatgammit 8y ago
I love the more rural areas, and I found a decent fit. I'm within 50 miles of an international airport, within 15 miles of a significant hub for my field, and there are fields just 5-10 min bike ride from my house. I'd consider my area to be suburban/semirural, and my main complaint is that it's starting to get crowded (there are 3 cities in my area > 100k people, though mine has 30k or so). I started working remote, and my mind went immediately to moving to a less populated area. I really don't understand the appeal of living in a city. There's a ton of traffic and noise, and it seems that people are way more busy in larger cities. But different strokes for different folks I suppose.
chaostheory 8y ago
Not many people outside of HN have opportunities for remote work. Most people don't want to be trapped into a situation where there's only one dominant employer in their area.

lazyasciiart 8y ago

Because 80% of Americans live in urban and suburban areas.

matt4077 8y ago

Almost by definition, people prefer to live in dense areas. In terms of prescriptive advice, high-density housing reduces urban sprawl. If you can convince a third of suburbia to change to denser housing, commute times for everyone would be cut in half. Vast swaths of land could also return to farmland or nature preserves. So even people who personally prefer to live "just outside the city" should advocate for denser housing. When the city builds up, everything moves towards the center. I just measured the distance from city centre to the countryside for two cities of about equal size: Hamburg (Pop 1.5 mil): 8mi Houston (Pop 1.8 mil): 22mi (I chose these because LA and Chicago have coastal layouts which aren't comparable. They also connect directly to other urban areas which for the purposes of this exercise should be considered as "farmland". Or you could add their respective populations which would further amplify the difference)

epistasis 8y ago
> So even people who personally prefer to live "just outside the city" should advocate for denser housing. When the city builds up, everything moves towards the center. Thanks for making this point, so many people vociferously object to any density anywhere. Nobody is being forcibly relocated to dense living, but people are being forcibly denied the option of dense living. It's similar to transit and traffic: though other people taking transit helps drivers encounter traffic, far too many drivers will attack transit because it's "not something they use." Realizing that other people want different things and that those different things might help you with your own wants is a complicated topic for public discussion.

notJim 8y ago

The rural lifestyle you're describing has a much higher ecological impact than an urban lifestyle. And many people now, myself included, prefer a lively city where I meet and see lots of people, rather than the isolation of rural life.

esoterica 8y ago

The article was focusing on the environmental impact of different living situations, and rural living is horrifically environmentally unfriendly. It would also be financially untenable if rural areas weren’t massively subsidized by urban economic centers. If you had to pay for the true cost of building and maintaining the infrastructure you use (which would be amortized over very few people due to the low population density) you wouldn’t be bragging about how cheap rural living is.

taborj 8y ago
My friends who have their own well and septic, and only pay for electricity from "the grid", would be very interested to hear how the folks in urban environments are "massively subsidizing" their home and property, and how they're not paying the "true cost" for building and maintaining their property. Related, I looked at a house that had a co-op for water. It was $25 a month and controlled completely by the homeowners, compared with the $100+ I'm paying for water in town where I'm subjected to the whims of the city council. Got any evidence to back up your claims?
- esoterica 8y ago
  How much do you think it costs per person to build a road that 50,000 people use every day vs a road that only sees 5 cars per day? You’re trying to argue that 1+1=3, I am not making a controversial or radical claim when I point out that urban areas subsidize rural ones.
  - taborj 8y ago
    Well, the road that handles 50,000 people will require a ton more maintenance, that I can assure you. Plus, rarely is the county (as it's almost always the county that covers the cost) putting in the road solely for residential use. Most of the time, the roads go somewhere that isn't serviced by another road, and the residential roads are off of those (and often paid for by the residents). Perhaps it's different where you live. But, aside from roads, what other infrastructure is massively subsidized by those in the urban areas?

taborj 8y ago

I'm with ya on preferring rural living, but I much prefer that everyone else's "dream home" be in the city. Now if we could only get a better political separation between urban and rural; right now, since the urban areas have higher population density, they effectively set the policy for those in rural areas, generally without caring much about the fallout.

bryanlarsen 8y ago
Rural areas are already massively over-represented in the senate because rural states tend to be far less populous than urban states and slightly over-represented in congress because rural districts tend to be smaller than urban ones.

beatgammit 8y ago

I love the more rural areas, and I found a decent fit. I'm within 50 miles of an international airport, within 15 miles of a significant hub for my field, and there are fields just 5-10 min bike ride from my house. I'd consider my area to be suburban/semirural, and my main complaint is that it's starting to get crowded (there are 3 cities in my area > 100k people, though mine has 30k or so). I started working remote, and my mind went immediately to moving to a less populated area. I really don't understand the appeal of living in a city. There's a ton of traffic and noise, and it seems that people are way more busy in larger cities. But different strokes for different folks I suppose.

chaostheory 8y ago

Not many people outside of HN have opportunities for remote work. Most people don't want to be trapped into a situation where there's only one dominant employer in their area.