4 ms·

Ok so the change from a decade or two ago is that young people want to live in places they can't afford. In the past they were evidently more content to live in

Ok so the change from a decade or two ago is that young people want to live in places they can't afford. In the past they were evidently more content to live in places they could afford. Doesn't really feel like cost of housing is what's changed.

ng12 6y ago
I grew up in a small rust belt city. 40 years ago there were reasons to live there: factories with union jobs and an entire local economy built upon them (financial services, a hospital, bustling main street, etc). All that's gone now. It's not that I wouldn't be content like my parents were, it's that it's fundamentally not the same city it was back then.
- pnutjam 6y ago
  You can't get that through to the parent poster. He only see's spherical cows, not reality.
- tstewart161 6y ago
  It’s not like the dichotomy is so stark. Like the parent comment said: Raleigh is cheap but still bustling with plenty to do, Richmond, Baltimore, Atlanta, and so on are bustling but not stupid expensive. It’s not just “ghosts town” vs “expensive modern city”
  - Zippogriff 6y ago
    I don't know whether it accounts for the entire "housing's more expensive everywhere" perception, but it sure seems like the only houses that exist near good schools and are cheap on a per-square-foot basis are giant, so still not cheap, thanks to a combination of zoning and developer incentives. It's not like we could live in a significantly smaller house if we wanted to. Another change is that smaller houses have giant rooms. If you want a 4-bedroom in a decent school district (so, around here it'll be 80s construction at the very earliest, probably late-90s or later, or else in one of a couple very rich and expensive areas that have older houses) you're in for a giant house. A 1960s middle-class 4-bedroom probably has about the square footage of a modern 2-bedroom. Sqft./room is way up across the board. Further, floorplans that look nice in a walk-through or in photos but are incredibly wasteful of all that "cheap" square footage are the norm.
uoaei 6y ago
In the past they were able to afford the places they wanted to live.
WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
> Ok so the change from a decade or two ago is that young people want to live in places they can't afford. It's their own fault for not living where HS graduates can afford - a tent on someone's unmaintained property.

ng12 6y ago

I grew up in a small rust belt city. 40 years ago there were reasons to live there: factories with union jobs and an entire local economy built upon them (financial services, a hospital, bustling main street, etc). All that's gone now. It's not that I wouldn't be content like my parents were, it's that it's fundamentally not the same city it was back then.

pnutjam 6y ago
You can't get that through to the parent poster. He only see's spherical cows, not reality.
tstewart161 6y ago
It’s not like the dichotomy is so stark. Like the parent comment said: Raleigh is cheap but still bustling with plenty to do, Richmond, Baltimore, Atlanta, and so on are bustling but not stupid expensive. It’s not just “ghosts town” vs “expensive modern city”
- Zippogriff 6y ago
  I don't know whether it accounts for the entire "housing's more expensive everywhere" perception, but it sure seems like the only houses that exist near good schools and are cheap on a per-square-foot basis are giant, so still not cheap, thanks to a combination of zoning and developer incentives. It's not like we could live in a significantly smaller house if we wanted to. Another change is that smaller houses have giant rooms. If you want a 4-bedroom in a decent school district (so, around here it'll be 80s construction at the very earliest, probably late-90s or later, or else in one of a couple very rich and expensive areas that have older houses) you're in for a giant house. A 1960s middle-class 4-bedroom probably has about the square footage of a modern 2-bedroom. Sqft./room is way up across the board. Further, floorplans that look nice in a walk-through or in photos but are incredibly wasteful of all that "cheap" square footage are the norm.

uoaei 6y ago

In the past they were able to afford the places they wanted to live.

WarOnPrivacy 6y ago

> Ok so the change from a decade or two ago is that young people want to live in places they can't afford. It's their own fault for not living where HS graduates can afford - a tent on someone's unmaintained property.