5 ms·

Let's check in on the Bozeman population density: 2,448.94 people per square mile Let's check on how San Francisco is doing: 18,790.74 people per square mile.

Let's check in on the Bozeman population density: 2,448.94 people per square mile Let's check on how San Francisco is doing: 18,790.74 people per square mile. Okay, no worries, Bozeman can keep its current foot print and 8X its population comfortably.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago
It’s like my entire comment was ignored :). You need more than just density to increase the size of a community. My mom and step dad built a house in Helena, which isn’t that far away. Pretty expensive place to live, infrastructure wasn’t great, housing was expensive (this is back in the 90s). The house turned out to be economically non viable for reasons unrelated to demand.
- creddit 5y ago
  It's like your comment was completely void of any kind of validity and it was easy to immediately look for evidence to the contrary of one of your major points. I'm sure it would be trivial to counter the point around water. Just consider any of the metropolises in the Middle East. In terms of infrastructure, that can be built as well. See literally any other city larger than Bozeman.
  - elefanten 5y ago
    Yes. Trivial. “ It has been estimated that between 1975 and 2000 a total of more than US$100bn has been invested in water supply and sanitation, and that a further US$130bn will be needed between 2002 and 2022, corresponding to US$6.5 billion per year or more than US$200 per capita and year.[2] This level of investment in water per capita is among the highest in the world, higher than in the US, the UK or Germany, due to the high cost of desalination and the need to transport water over long distances. It corresponds to about 1.5% of GDP.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Saudi_Arabia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_...
    - creddit 5y ago
      I mean, yeah clearly? Your own source for what is nearly the worst case in the world is ongoing investment of “US$200 per capita and year”. Look at how much the home values have increased! Do you really think that’s not trivially extractable from property taxes?? That’s IF it’s as bad as building megacities in the middle of literal deserts which obviously a place like Bozeman is NOT. You’re throwing your hands up exasperated at the costs of building water infra when the peak is somewhere around 1.5% of GDP but then you have housing costs that are rising dramatically faster than wages and everyone’s like “whelp, nothing to done here.”
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        Over the course of 10 or 20 years, you can build out the infrastructure to support the previous boom (well, it’s harder in Montana since they are more anti-tax). But in the course of 1 or 2 years? And if that boom turns into a bust before you can get the infrastructure projects going? Urban planning is useful for a reason. Building housing is far from effective on its own, and not all areas can support the same densities (in the Middle East, they have to be really careful about where they grow). And even if you “win”, the result is a more livable city that attracts even more people, leading to price increases nonetheless.
        dublinben 5y ago
        >the result is a more livable city that attracts even more people That doesn't sound so bad. What's the alternative?
        seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        Yes, unless you are looking for low cost housing.
        5y ago
lizknope 5y ago
Look at Bozeman on Google Maps with the satellite view. There are mountains to the NE, E, and South. Many of these desirable mountain locations like Vail are in mountain valleys where there is a limited amount of land to build on.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago

It’s like my entire comment was ignored :). You need more than just density to increase the size of a community. My mom and step dad built a house in Helena, which isn’t that far away. Pretty expensive place to live, infrastructure wasn’t great, housing was expensive (this is back in the 90s). The house turned out to be economically non viable for reasons unrelated to demand.

creddit 5y ago
It's like your comment was completely void of any kind of validity and it was easy to immediately look for evidence to the contrary of one of your major points. I'm sure it would be trivial to counter the point around water. Just consider any of the metropolises in the Middle East. In terms of infrastructure, that can be built as well. See literally any other city larger than Bozeman.
- elefanten 5y ago
  Yes. Trivial. “ It has been estimated that between 1975 and 2000 a total of more than US$100bn has been invested in water supply and sanitation, and that a further US$130bn will be needed between 2002 and 2022, corresponding to US$6.5 billion per year or more than US$200 per capita and year.[2] This level of investment in water per capita is among the highest in the world, higher than in the US, the UK or Germany, due to the high cost of desalination and the need to transport water over long distances. It corresponds to about 1.5% of GDP.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Saudi_Arabia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_...
  - creddit 5y ago
    I mean, yeah clearly? Your own source for what is nearly the worst case in the world is ongoing investment of “US$200 per capita and year”. Look at how much the home values have increased! Do you really think that’s not trivially extractable from property taxes?? That’s IF it’s as bad as building megacities in the middle of literal deserts which obviously a place like Bozeman is NOT. You’re throwing your hands up exasperated at the costs of building water infra when the peak is somewhere around 1.5% of GDP but then you have housing costs that are rising dramatically faster than wages and everyone’s like “whelp, nothing to done here.”
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      Over the course of 10 or 20 years, you can build out the infrastructure to support the previous boom (well, it’s harder in Montana since they are more anti-tax). But in the course of 1 or 2 years? And if that boom turns into a bust before you can get the infrastructure projects going? Urban planning is useful for a reason. Building housing is far from effective on its own, and not all areas can support the same densities (in the Middle East, they have to be really careful about where they grow). And even if you “win”, the result is a more livable city that attracts even more people, leading to price increases nonetheless.
      - dublinben 5y ago
        >the result is a more livable city that attracts even more people That doesn't sound so bad. What's the alternative?
        seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        Yes, unless you are looking for low cost housing.
        5y ago

lizknope 5y ago

Look at Bozeman on Google Maps with the satellite view. There are mountains to the NE, E, and South. Many of these desirable mountain locations like Vail are in mountain valleys where there is a limited amount of land to build on.