4 ms·
USA population density is 6.6 acres per person, or 37 people per square kilometer. I’d far rather my family be in a more expensive larger home on 25 acres (with
by ctdonath 5y ago
USA population density is 6.6 acres per person, or 37 people per square kilometer. I’d far rather my family be in a more expensive larger home on 25 acres (with prospect of self-sufficiency) than jammed into a large building with X # of strangers and no land.
Funny thing is, that “more expensive larger home” isn’t more expensive - it’s on par or cheaper, even with the land. Blows my mind that urban dwellers think paying equivalent of my mortgage (on a 2400sqft house) for a couple rooms is reasonable.
Building big may be more efficient, but that’s not what occupants see in their rent bill.
- swiley 5y agoYou're paying with the commute. Sure I pay the same for my smaller apartment as some people pay for their mortgage but the land near my office is expensive enough that the only way to make a profit is efficiency in the form of dense construction. The result is I have a 20 minute (round trip) walk from my kitchen to cube where many people have 1.5 hour drive through city traffic plus maintenance/insurance etc. WFH changes that some, if you don't mind driving for groceries/hang-outs then going far out of developed areas for a larger home isn't so bad, although I will say as someone who grew up in a place like that it makes your kids significantly more dependent on you and severely limits their ability to socialize. Some people argue that's a plus and perhaps they're right, many of the most knowledgeable people I know came from similar situations but I'm not convinced it's all positive.
- ctdonath 5y agoCommute? Down the stairs. Provisions would require more planning, but that’s a good thing - more deliberation, more efficiency. The “socializing” argument is overrated. Important yes, but they’re not completely isolated, and need to know how to function without others.