3 ms·
It's not like the only two options are cities and sprawling car-dependent suburbs. (Well okay, in the US those are mostly the only two options.) That suburb I m
by ryukafalz 5y ago
It's not like the only two options are cities and sprawling car-dependent suburbs. (Well okay, in the US those are mostly the only two options.) That suburb I mentioned in a sibling comment thread with the 30-minute rail commute is a town of about 13,000, houses there generally have backyards (though not huge front yards), there are plenty of quiet side streets, it's still walkable, etc. It's an "in between" kind of density. The problem is we've mostly legislated these places out of existence; you can't build places like this anymore in almost all of the US. I just happen to be in an area that was built up before modern zoning codes prevented it.
This video is a good overview: https://youtu.be/MWsGBRdK2N0 https://youtu.be/MWsGBRdK2N0
Of course, if you want to live super far away from the city and drive in, that's fine, I just wish that wasn't basically the only option besides living right in the city. Places like this still exist, and I think there's a lot of demand for them, but because they're not expanding (again, legislated away) the cost of living there will just keep going up because supply will never increase.
- jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 5y agoI would love for more of the housing you are talking about to exist, but one has to deal with reality as it currently exists even while working to change it.
- ryukafalz 5y agoYes, that's true. But you do also need to work to change it, or it won't change. Unfortunately that probably means that if you have a city job, for now you'll be stuck with either long commutes, living right in the city, or expensive housing in the remaining walkable suburbs. Or you can move somewhere that has already figured this out. :) But I understand that's out of reach for many people; it's out of reach for me.