4 ms·
> I’ve yet to see anywhere on earth that’s both dense and cheap which I believe more or less proves the point. If building more houses really made things cheape
by tivert 4y ago
> I’ve yet to see anywhere on earth that’s both dense and cheap which I believe more or less proves the point. If building more houses really made things cheaper it would be trivial to prove: cities, which are denser, would be cheaper than the nearby suburbs. Across virtually every region this is not true, when adjusted for square footage.
After a certain point, density probably increases unit costs, which would mean the densest housing can't be the cheapest.
I'm reminded of an all-hands meeting years ago, where employees were asking for parking improvements in very office building large building (surrounded by very large parking lots). They wanted a parking garage, and the management said flat out that wasn't going to happen because it would cost 10x+ more per parking space.
- jethro_tell 4y agoSure, building a structure is cheaper than not building a structure, bit to an extent, usually height above 7-8 stories, it gets cheaper per SQ ft to build as you go up. That's before you factor in the cost of land which tends to be one of the most expensive parts of building in a city, that also goes down per unit built. I'm not sure, 'should we build a structure or just pave a field is really a good comparison here'