3 ms·

Houses in cities ought to be cheaper than in the countryside. The use of space is denser, utilities have much shorter lines and roads are just that small thing

by TomK32 2y ago

Houses in cities ought to be cheaper than in the countryside. The use of space is denser, utilities have much shorter lines and roads are just that small thing between all the houses not long stretches trough the landscape. What we have to discuss is the distribution of living space, just like here in Austria I guess in the UK there's a lot of older people still living in the same house as a couple (or even alone) as when they had their children still living with them. We need incentives for people to downsize when they are still able to do it on their own.

Dalewyn 2y ago
>The use of space is denser That is precisely why land in cities is more expensive. There are more people wanting land in a given area but the given area doesn't scale to the population, so people start paying more to have more of that limited space thereby driving out those who can't (or don't). It's like how some people will pay for first/business class or premium economy class on a jetliner so they have more of the limited space in a flight cabin than those who didn't pay up. The problem, which frankly isn't an actual problem, is that some people feel like bitching up instead of paying up for a good that is valued highly. We can discuss endlessly whether the valuation of city real estate is too high, but the conclusion is always going to be either paying up or getting out.
bluGill 2y ago
The cost of infrastructure to a house is only a tiny fraction of the cost. This is where you (and strongtowns who advocates for this view) fail! Sure they will spend $10million/mile to pave a road, but that road will be used by many people for a few decades before it needs to be redone and so the true cost is only a few dollars per year per person, even in rural areas.
naming_the_user 2y ago
You have this exactly backwards. Houses in the countryside should be cheaper because they are easier to build and the land has less value. What’s potentially more expensive out in the country is the infrastructure. The house price is lower to reflect that, the overall cost of ownership/living may be the same or higher as a result.

by TomK32 2y ago

Dalewyn 2y ago

>The use of space is denser That is precisely why land in cities is more expensive. There are more people wanting land in a given area but the given area doesn't scale to the population, so people start paying more to have more of that limited space thereby driving out those who can't (or don't). It's like how some people will pay for first/business class or premium economy class on a jetliner so they have more of the limited space in a flight cabin than those who didn't pay up. The problem, which frankly isn't an actual problem, is that some people feel like bitching up instead of paying up for a good that is valued highly. We can discuss endlessly whether the valuation of city real estate is too high, but the conclusion is always going to be either paying up or getting out.

bluGill 2y ago

The cost of infrastructure to a house is only a tiny fraction of the cost. This is where you (and strongtowns who advocates for this view) fail! Sure they will spend $10million/mile to pave a road, but that road will be used by many people for a few decades before it needs to be redone and so the true cost is only a few dollars per year per person, even in rural areas.

naming_the_user 2y ago

You have this exactly backwards. Houses in the countryside should be cheaper because they are easier to build and the land has less value. What’s potentially more expensive out in the country is the infrastructure. The house price is lower to reflect that, the overall cost of ownership/living may be the same or higher as a result.