4 ms·
Given that "want to live" is a factor that is fluid and changes more quickly than building homes (which is how we ended up in this situation in the first place)
by munificent 5y ago
Given that "want to live" is a factor that is fluid and changes more quickly than building homes (which is how we ended up in this situation in the first place), it's probably also good to invest in making existing places that people are currently fleeing more desirable.
The jobs left quickly enough that our physical infrastructure couldn't keep up. That implies that jobs are more fluid than building and that therefore that's probably the easier approach to getting jobs and housing in balance.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- zbrozek 5y agoIt should be fast to build houses. My family acquired land, designs, permits, and moved in to a place in rural TN in about 9 months. It's taken me 2 years to get a site development permit (permission to ask for a building permit) to modify a roofline so that it sheds water in CA.
- munificent 5y agoBuilding houses in rural areas is fast and cheap because there's nothing already there and screwing up is unlikely to affect anyone else since no one is nearby. Increasing density in places that are already built up is much harder. You have to remove the people and things that are already there. If you do something wrong, there are many people in the area who can be negatively affected. Building permitting regulations are written using the ashes of fires that started from a single house and burned down an entire city.
- bombcar 5y agoThat may be how they were written but now they’re used as an extension of NIMBY. And often the density of “rural” areas is comparable to the big cities as even in rural areas most of the population is in small cities.
- zbrozek 5y agoI'm on two acres with hundreds of feet between houses. There's no justification, just NIMBYism.