3 ms·
Your argument about costs ignores the key fact that rural areas are far less productive than urban areas, and so cannot afford even the same per-capita rates as
by sagarm 5y ago
Your argument about costs ignores the key fact that rural areas are far less productive than urban areas, and so cannot afford even the same per-capita rates as urban areas.
As for the land value economics of multi-family development in rural areas: it just isn't that important IMO.
However your described scenario seems like a great way for the rural area to become economically relevant by gradually building up a functional amount of density.
- mindslight 5y agoI don't see how this "productivity" you're talking about is relevant to my point. The page you link is talking about the large scale urban-rural balance, not analyzing the gradient in a given region. Cities themselves are obviously centers of commerce and concentrations of wealth - but it's nonsensical to extrapolate this feature as applying to slightly denser suburbs. If someone lives in the suburbs and commutes into the city to work, then all their "productivity" happens in the city. And obviously the more workers you can fit into a given area, the more work gets done (cf factory housing). Furthermore, cities are inherently more interconnected and thus the activities there are more legible to the system, whereas rural work is less so - eg a couple working full time plus and hiring maids/contractors/etc to take care of their home creates a lot more cashflow than a rural couple DIYing.