3 ms·
Because people moving to a city from a rural area have been making a lower salary and are now facing the high costs of a city. An engineer with a signing bonus
by cheriot 5y ago
Because people moving to a city from a rural area have been making a lower salary and are now facing the high costs of a city. An engineer with a signing bonus can make the transition smoothly, but the people forced out of rural areas often don't get them.
The corollary to high housing prices is that people sprawl outward for lower prices and end up with very long commutes. Around me, ~40% of SF renters are paying more than 30% of income on housing. I for get the portion of people super commuting (> 90 minutes each way) but the % grows when SF adds more offices.
So prohibitions on dense housing screw over people that want a rural life, but are forced to take jobs in a city. They'll have a harder time even saving up to go back.
- giantg2 5y agoOk, so you assumed they moved to a city. "So prohibitions on dense housing screw over people that want a rural life, but are forced to take jobs in a city." According to the article in this post, people prefer lower density housing. I don't see how adding more higher density housing will meaningfully change that. Because as you make the commutes shorter, etc you entice more people to move there.
- cheriot 5y agoPeople prefer housing they can’t afford. Allowing housing of different densities allows people to optimize their trade offs.
- giantg2 5y agoCities do allow housing of different densities depending on location (zone). Why would mixed density make it any better, especially when the article/study already says people prefer low density housing?
- cheriot 5y agoNot really. In practice, there's a small area for apartment complexes and then a huge area for single family exclusive housing. In places without strict zoning, there's a whole spectrum of things https://missingmiddlehousing.com https://missingmiddlehousing.com The goal is that when prices go up, there should be a way for people to build more homes that have a reasonable commute.
- giantg2 5y agoThat depends on which cities we're looking at. We also have to look at percentage and not just area. If we're packing people in 10:1, then the space can be 5-10% of the area and hold a large portion of population. This may be sufficient based on the desires of the people (back to the article).we "The goal is that when prices go up, there should be a way for people to build more homes that have a reasonable commute." If they can't, then that should encourage employers to look elsewhere and move.
- cheriot 5y ago> If they can't, then that should encourage employers to look elsewhere and move. It doesn't. That's why the most prosperous American cities have the longest commutes and least affordable housing. If a metro area decided they don't want job growth and limited new office construction I'd be fine with that. But when a municipality allows new offices and prohibits new housing it hurts a lot of people.