4 ms·
I feel like there's an issue with the crystallization of popular destinations that means that regardless of policy, in 2020 we have a different benchmark than 1
by throwaway22032 3y ago
I feel like there's an issue with the crystallization of popular destinations that means that regardless of policy, in 2020 we have a different benchmark than 1960.
For example, when London was cheaper, it was a very different place to today. Pollution, lots of areas that regular people wouldn't want to go to, generally just a less global city and less developed.
Moving there or living there now is different to how it was. There's a ton more competition. There's more people in the entire country, "everyone" wants to go to University, etc.
I feel like we need to go back to basics, like the social housing boom, and say - what do we need for people to settle down, feel ownership over their communities, raise families and get married, etc.
I don't think that "people can afford to rent in huge cities" is sustainable as a goal.
- ghaff 3y agoPerhaps leaving aside today's problems in US West Coast cities, Western cities (certainly in the East Coast of the US but more broadly) 40 years or so ago were a lot grittier, more dangerous, less desirable, and yes cheaper than they are today. If I look at my cohort from grad school in the Boston area, I don't think anyone lived in--or even especially near--the city. And it wasn't because of cost. The city was still losing population well into the 90s.
- fallingfrog 3y ago>>I don't think that "people can afford to rent in huge cities" is sustainable as a goal. One wonders, then, what cities are for, exactly?
- throwaway22032 3y agoI mean huge cities. World cities like London, NYC, etc. The ones that people _move continents_ to live in. I don't think it's feasible any more in the internet age for popular places like that to remain accessible to all.