3 ms·
Abandoned houses with no youthful labor to repair will have little value as a place to live. It’s not like available housing in Montana will change prices near
by mensetmanusman 2y ago
Abandoned houses with no youthful labor to repair will have little value as a place to live. It’s not like available housing in Montana will change prices near NYC.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoIt would be wise to build today for service life of whatever is being built (housing, infrastructure, etc) that anticipates many less humans available in the future to maintain.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y agoThat just front-loads a cost that is no more affordable today than it will be later. Everything is so expensive now that we're constantly trying to cut corners just to be able to pay for it. We can't add another 80% (or more) to that so that old geezers 100 years from now won't have to put new shingles on the roof.
- Retric 2y agoBuilding for longer lifespans is generally fairly cheap. You’d be amazed with how far a 10% larger budget can take you, but builders are selling to buyers who don’t really understand the trade offs.
- Retric 2y agoSkyscrapers are inherently more expensive to build and maintain than smaller buildings, so a significantly smaller global population gets more efficient housing automatically.
- kjkjadksj 2y agoThe way it works in the western world is that small population areas are so low density its mainly detached single family buildings. Many old and poorly insulated by todays standards. Not a lot of very small attached building style towns and villages being made these days. People like space it seems over absolute efficiency.
- adamc 2y agoLabor prices will go up but scarcity will go down. People will end up doing more of their own labor, in all likelihood, but I still think it is likely to help.