3 ms·

If land is not needed for agriculture then can be used for something else, such as, you know, housing?

runsWphotons 4y ago
yes the famous housing crisis in rural Nebraska
pphysch 4y ago
Finding housing 100 miles away in Farmville has never been a challenge. The problem is most people don't want to live 100 miles away in Farmville and commute that distance.
paxys 4y ago
There is unlimited land available for housing in the USA. The housing crisis stems from the fact that everyone wants to live in the same few square miles in every state. Converting agricultural land isn't going to fix the problem unless the farm is in downtown Manhattan.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Exactly. Replace part of Central Park with a skyscraper apartment and it'll sell out instantly. Build the exact same building in East Palestine, Ohio and it'll sit empty for decades.
Ekaros 4y ago
Or solar panels to well run those vertical farms... The energy going into food has to come from somewhere. And I still don't believe the equation is net positive in natural vs. artificial light.
AlexandrB 4y ago
The idea that agricultural land is somehow reducing the supply of housing runs counter to common sense. By the time you reach any significant agricultural land near Toronto, for example, you're already so far away from the city that you're looking at a 1 hr commute during rush hour. If you work remotely, you can already live in Woodstock or London, Ontario and housing affordability is not as much of a problem for you either. The reason the agricultural land is not converted into housing is because there's little demand for it - not because it's essential to food production.
- randomdata 4y ago
  > The reason the agricultural land is not converted into housing is because there's little demand for it - not because it's essential to food production. As an Ontario farmer located several hours from Toronto, I have had a seemingly endless line of people wanting to buy a small plot from my farmland on which to build themselves a home. The demand is there[1], but there is far too much red tape to make it happen. Furthermore, the price of food has been strong for the last decade or so which has sent the price of farmland sky high (up ~500% over the last 15 years), making housing on those lands more expensive. I would suggest that the price of housing in the cities has gone up exactly because it has become considerably more expensive to build out into the farmlands compared to earlier decades. When sprawl is too costly, that puts more pressure on existing city boundaries. [1] Or at least was there. It is not clear if there is much lingering housing demand in Ontario as of the past few months. All reports I read indicate that people don't want to own homes anymore.
  - FpUser 4y ago
    Oh believe me they want. they just can not afford it. In the 90's I easily bought house in Toronto and I did not need to have high income. Now it is nigh to impossible for majority of working people.
    - randomdata 4y ago
      Housing in Toronto was affordable in the 90s because there was cheaper alternatives. Whether or not one preferred to live in Toronto is immaterial. What is significant is that there was an even more affordable choice to move to the edge of town, keeping pressure away from the core. Price is moderated by choice, after all. In the 90s, a 100 acre farm here would have sold for around $100,000. Today, the same farm would sell for around $3 million. That is a substantial increase to acquiring the land and a cost that is burdened even if you choose to put a home on the land. This means that there isn't a cheap option outside of town to provide as an alternative like their historically was. And, thus, that puts more pressure on prices within the city.
- wpietri 4y ago
LatteLazy 4y ago
We actually should be building large towns in rural areas and linking them to real cities by high speed rail. That is what would be required to eliviate the housing crisis in urban areas. But that would require governments of various levels from federal to counties to work together, and for people to take a view more than 1 election cycle ahead etc. If we did that, on a HUGE scale, we might use 0.1% of the farm land in question...

yes the famous housing crisis in rural Nebraska

Finding housing 100 miles away in Farmville has never been a challenge. The problem is most people don't want to live 100 miles away in Farmville and commute that distance.

paxys 4y ago

There is unlimited land available for housing in the USA. The housing crisis stems from the fact that everyone wants to live in the same few square miles in every state. Converting agricultural land isn't going to fix the problem unless the farm is in downtown Manhattan.

bombcar 4y ago
Exactly. Replace part of Central Park with a skyscraper apartment and it'll sell out instantly. Build the exact same building in East Palestine, Ohio and it'll sit empty for decades.

Ekaros 4y ago

Or solar panels to well run those vertical farms... The energy going into food has to come from somewhere. And I still don't believe the equation is net positive in natural vs. artificial light.

AlexandrB 4y ago

The idea that agricultural land is somehow reducing the supply of housing runs counter to common sense. By the time you reach any significant agricultural land near Toronto, for example, you're already so far away from the city that you're looking at a 1 hr commute during rush hour. If you work remotely, you can already live in Woodstock or London, Ontario and housing affordability is not as much of a problem for you either. The reason the agricultural land is not converted into housing is because there's little demand for it - not because it's essential to food production.

randomdata 4y ago
> The reason the agricultural land is not converted into housing is because there's little demand for it - not because it's essential to food production. As an Ontario farmer located several hours from Toronto, I have had a seemingly endless line of people wanting to buy a small plot from my farmland on which to build themselves a home. The demand is there[1], but there is far too much red tape to make it happen. Furthermore, the price of food has been strong for the last decade or so which has sent the price of farmland sky high (up ~500% over the last 15 years), making housing on those lands more expensive. I would suggest that the price of housing in the cities has gone up exactly because it has become considerably more expensive to build out into the farmlands compared to earlier decades. When sprawl is too costly, that puts more pressure on existing city boundaries. [1] Or at least was there. It is not clear if there is much lingering housing demand in Ontario as of the past few months. All reports I read indicate that people don't want to own homes anymore.
- FpUser 4y ago
  Oh believe me they want. they just can not afford it. In the 90's I easily bought house in Toronto and I did not need to have high income. Now it is nigh to impossible for majority of working people.
  - randomdata 4y ago
    Housing in Toronto was affordable in the 90s because there was cheaper alternatives. Whether or not one preferred to live in Toronto is immaterial. What is significant is that there was an even more affordable choice to move to the edge of town, keeping pressure away from the core. Price is moderated by choice, after all. In the 90s, a 100 acre farm here would have sold for around $100,000. Today, the same farm would sell for around $3 million. That is a substantial increase to acquiring the land and a cost that is burdened even if you choose to put a home on the land. This means that there isn't a cheap option outside of town to provide as an alternative like their historically was. And, thus, that puts more pressure on prices within the city.
wpietri 4y ago

LatteLazy 4y ago

We actually should be building large towns in rural areas and linking them to real cities by high speed rail. That is what would be required to eliviate the housing crisis in urban areas. But that would require governments of various levels from federal to counties to work together, and for people to take a view more than 1 election cycle ahead etc. If we did that, on a HUGE scale, we might use 0.1% of the farm land in question...