3 ms·
This is clearly why people pay less for housing in locales like New York or San Francisco with very efficient land use than, say, rural Oklahoma.
by davidw 2y ago
This is clearly why people pay less for housing in locales like New York or San Francisco with very efficient land use than, say, rural Oklahoma.
- Ajedi32 2y agoSan Fransisco housing is cheaper than rural Oklahoma? Source, please. San Francisco is notorious for being an extremely expensive place to live. In my experience, housing outside cities (suburbs or rural areas) is usually much, much cheaper per square foot than housing in metro areas.
- jerlam 2y agoThis is obviously sarcasm.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- davidw 2y agoAs the other poster notes, I was being sarcastic. People pay a ton of money to live in denser cities like NY, London and Paris.
- Ajedi32 2y agoBut in that case that's already what the comment you were replying to was saying: that higher density results in higher costs. So I guess I'm confused about what your point is. Were you just trying to say you agree?
- davidw 2y agoThe high costs are because an area is desirable, not because it's dense. Density is how you do something to mitigate the high costs of a place like NYC. Imagine if you chopped off the upper half of all buildings there, what prices would do! You could build a bunch of dense housing in Burns, Oregon and you wouldn't be able to charge much for rent there!
- c22 2y agoIt's a bit of a chicken and egg thing because the density is a huge component of the desireability.