4 ms·

That would be true if the lot size were the same as the high cost locations and home inventory could be created overnight. In reality, as we are seeing in Idah

by mrkstu 5y ago

That would be true if the lot size were the same as the high cost locations and home inventory could be created overnight. In reality, as we are seeing in Idaho, despite large swaths of undeveloped land available, the homes are still skyrocketing in price due to lack of inventory.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
The popular areas of Idaho are tiny compared to vast regions of flat land available in the middle. Of course all of the demand directed all at once without adequate supply will result in price increases. But people incorporate the fact that some places will never have enough supply simply due to lack of sufficient land. In that sense, a house in a popular part of Idaho will always be more than a house in Iowa.
- scythe 5y ago
  > The popular areas of Idaho are tiny compared to vast regions of flat land available in the middle. This isn't a solution to the cost of living, and in fact it would make it much worse. If people were spread out evenly over Idaho, the cost of shipping goods and driving to work would explode, not to mention power transmission, broadband, sewers, etc. Ascribing the current situation to some "desire to be competitive" which somehow appeared in the past three decades and was absent in 1900, is not compatible with comparisons to our past or other countries' present. Paris has roughly five times the population density of Washington, DC. We're not out of space. We're using it badly. Meanwhile, there are parts of coastal California that aren't even expensive: https://www.zillow.com/homes/Eureka,-CA_rb/ https://www.zillow.com/homes/Eureka,-CA_rb/
  - bradlys 5y ago
    Yeah - the issue in the USA is that everyone here still thinks sprawl is sustainable. It’s not. Financially or climate wise - it’s not sustainable. It’s been cheap historically because the government subsidized it. It’s actually very expensive. (Roads and service lines cost a lot of money - go figure) Idk why people keep thinking it’s a cheaper way to do things when we know that it isn’t. It’s like no one here has read any of those strong towns articles.

by mrkstu 5y ago

lotsofpulp 5y ago

The popular areas of Idaho are tiny compared to vast regions of flat land available in the middle. Of course all of the demand directed all at once without adequate supply will result in price increases. But people incorporate the fact that some places will never have enough supply simply due to lack of sufficient land. In that sense, a house in a popular part of Idaho will always be more than a house in Iowa.

scythe 5y ago
> The popular areas of Idaho are tiny compared to vast regions of flat land available in the middle. This isn't a solution to the cost of living, and in fact it would make it much worse. If people were spread out evenly over Idaho, the cost of shipping goods and driving to work would explode, not to mention power transmission, broadband, sewers, etc. Ascribing the current situation to some "desire to be competitive" which somehow appeared in the past three decades and was absent in 1900, is not compatible with comparisons to our past or other countries' present. Paris has roughly five times the population density of Washington, DC. We're not out of space. We're using it badly. Meanwhile, there are parts of coastal California that aren't even expensive: https://www.zillow.com/homes/Eureka,-CA_rb/ https://www.zillow.com/homes/Eureka,-CA_rb/
- bradlys 5y ago
  Yeah - the issue in the USA is that everyone here still thinks sprawl is sustainable. It’s not. Financially or climate wise - it’s not sustainable. It’s been cheap historically because the government subsidized it. It’s actually very expensive. (Roads and service lines cost a lot of money - go figure) Idk why people keep thinking it’s a cheaper way to do things when we know that it isn’t. It’s like no one here has read any of those strong towns articles.