3 ms·
> Our modern cities are clearly not economically viable (proof of that is that people can't afford to live in them) No, that's not sufficient proof. You'd nee
by vkou 3y ago
>
Our modern cities are clearly not economically viable (proof of that is that people can't afford to live in them)
No, that's not sufficient proof. You'd need unaffordability, and high rates of rental vacancies to prove that. Most of the unaffordable cities have near-zero vacancy rates.
"That place is too crowded now, nobody goes there anymore."
- marcosdumay 3y agoWell, you can only have high rates of vacancies if you have plenty of housing.
- vkou 3y agoIf the cities were net-negative economically, there'd be a net outflow of people from them (As anyone who can't make ends meet on the margins would pack up, leave, and create those vacancies.) Yet, that's not the case. There's an economic pull to cities, the are, on the net, more productive than the countryside (Because the proximity of people makes the cost of bringing goods and services to market very, very low.) The cost of land, in the long-term, rises to meet the economical productivity of an area. The reason that cities are so damn expensive is because they are productive.