3 ms·
> And the infrastructure costs more to maintain Wouldn't this be addressed by economies of scale? If you have 400 people living in a building, even if the comp
by milkytron 5y ago
> And the infrastructure costs more to maintain
Wouldn't this be addressed by economies of scale? If you have 400 people living in a building, even if the complexity of the infrastructure is greater, isn't it more efficient than having 400 single family homes? Not that one can directly replace another, but I'm talking about the number of people being the constant.
> The main impact comes from needing less transport of goods and people, which is an environmental plus, but not something priced into the cost of living.
Transportation I think is especially huge, but I imagine there are other efficiencies of living in a dense urban area. And I think that regardless of whether or not external costs are priced in, they should be counted towards efficiency of infrastructure.
- jedberg 5y ago> Wouldn't this be addressed by economies of scale? It would seem not. It's hard to find data, but a good proxy is condo fees for high rise condos vs low rise condos. Typically the high rise condo fees are higher than the low rise condos in similar areas, when the offer similar amenities. And usually condo fees are true cost representations, because the residents control the spending of their own money, so it's not a profit area for the owner, like the rent is. Which means by proxy it's more expensive to maintain a high rise than a low rise complex.