4 ms·

The benefits of living in the country are obvious. And since the land provides income itself, the extra cost of transportation one has to assume to live in the

by 9rx 1y ago

The benefits of living in the country are obvious. And since the land provides income itself, the extra cost of transportation one has to assume to live in the country is well offset anyway. Its the weird middle ground that has all of the downsides of the country and all of the downsides of the city all packed into one that we're talking about.

acuozzo 1y ago
> And since the land provides income itself Hardly. Agriculture is hard work and not at all profitable unless the operation is at scale.
- 9rx 1y ago
  > Agriculture is hard work and not at all profitable unless the operation is at scale. You seem a bit confused. While that is more or less true for the farmer, it is that way because the landlord usually takes most of the profit. As is to be expected. They hold all the cards. You can't farm without land. But given that in this scenario you are the landlord, not the one doing the work... The key to farm profitability is to own your own land free and clear. But, of course, unless you have a high paying job doing something else instead of farming that's really hard to pull off, so most farmers end up renting (either to a landlord directly, or renting money from a lender). That's when you need scale to make up for the vast majority of the profit going to someone else.
Whoppertime 1y ago
Some people really just want a back yard with a white picket fence their kids can play in
- 9rx 1y ago
  Sure, but outside of where that backyard is wanted to be hundreds of acres, then there is the density necessary to introduce amenities like jobs, healthcare, shopping, etc. alongside the backyard. At which point you no longer need transportation as you have everything you need right there. But what happens in the places we're talking about is that the people accept a small backyard in order to keep everything close, but also work to ensure that amenities aren't welcome, only allowing other houses to be close. So you get all the downsides of the city, having to trip over your annoying neighbours, but also the downsides of living in the country, having to waste large amounts of time driving to do anything. What do people see in these strange middle places?
  - bluefirebrand 1y ago
    > What do people see in these strange middle places? Not sharing a wall or ceiling with other people is great actually I am constantly told that dense housing "built right" is quiet and peaceful and you never hear your neighbors through the walls, but my experience in apartments in my 20s was not like that I constantly had neighbours that would play loud music at all hours, or get into fights with their partners or otherwise just be extremely disruptive and stressful to share a building with I'll take the trade of having to drive a couple more minutes to get to a store if it means I never have to hear my neighbours having loud sex through the walls again at 2am when I'm trying to sleep
    - 9rx 1y ago
      You've made a great case for living in the country, but not for the weird middle places.
      - bluefirebrand 1y ago
        Well the weird middle places are just a compromise between "having more space and more distance from neighbours" and "being far from amenities and city life"
        9rx 1y ago
        > and "being far from amenities and city life" They close the distance gap, but thanks to poor civil design often (yes, there are exceptions, always) they don't close the time gap. I don't suppose it is being able to see a mostly occluded, hazy silhouette of the downtown skyscrapers is the appeal there. Surely this is about minimizing travel time? A family member once lived in the suburbs of a large city. I live 50 miles clear of that city. It was always fun to razz them about the fact that I could be to the amenities in the city faster than they could. Many cities (not all, there are exceptions, always) develop as economic hubs, needing to get things in and out of the city as fast as possible, often at the cost of intercity movement. This leaves it more advantageous, if not in the heart of the action, to live outside of the city with respect to the matter of time. Perhaps people just end up in the suburbs out of happenstance (e.g. they were born there) and never give it any more thought? It would be fascinating to hear from those who gave all three types of places a fair shake and still settled on the suburbs in the end.

by 9rx 1y ago

acuozzo 1y ago

> And since the land provides income itself Hardly. Agriculture is hard work and not at all profitable unless the operation is at scale.

9rx 1y ago
> Agriculture is hard work and not at all profitable unless the operation is at scale. You seem a bit confused. While that is more or less true for the farmer, it is that way because the landlord usually takes most of the profit. As is to be expected. They hold all the cards. You can't farm without land. But given that in this scenario you are the landlord, not the one doing the work... The key to farm profitability is to own your own land free and clear. But, of course, unless you have a high paying job doing something else instead of farming that's really hard to pull off, so most farmers end up renting (either to a landlord directly, or renting money from a lender). That's when you need scale to make up for the vast majority of the profit going to someone else.

Whoppertime 1y ago

Some people really just want a back yard with a white picket fence their kids can play in

9rx 1y ago
Sure, but outside of where that backyard is wanted to be hundreds of acres, then there is the density necessary to introduce amenities like jobs, healthcare, shopping, etc. alongside the backyard. At which point you no longer need transportation as you have everything you need right there. But what happens in the places we're talking about is that the people accept a small backyard in order to keep everything close, but also work to ensure that amenities aren't welcome, only allowing other houses to be close. So you get all the downsides of the city, having to trip over your annoying neighbours, but also the downsides of living in the country, having to waste large amounts of time driving to do anything. What do people see in these strange middle places?
- bluefirebrand 1y ago
  > What do people see in these strange middle places? Not sharing a wall or ceiling with other people is great actually I am constantly told that dense housing "built right" is quiet and peaceful and you never hear your neighbors through the walls, but my experience in apartments in my 20s was not like that I constantly had neighbours that would play loud music at all hours, or get into fights with their partners or otherwise just be extremely disruptive and stressful to share a building with I'll take the trade of having to drive a couple more minutes to get to a store if it means I never have to hear my neighbours having loud sex through the walls again at 2am when I'm trying to sleep
  - 9rx 1y ago
    You've made a great case for living in the country, but not for the weird middle places.
    - bluefirebrand 1y ago
      Well the weird middle places are just a compromise between "having more space and more distance from neighbours" and "being far from amenities and city life"
      - 9rx 1y ago
        > and "being far from amenities and city life" They close the distance gap, but thanks to poor civil design often (yes, there are exceptions, always) they don't close the time gap. I don't suppose it is being able to see a mostly occluded, hazy silhouette of the downtown skyscrapers is the appeal there. Surely this is about minimizing travel time? A family member once lived in the suburbs of a large city. I live 50 miles clear of that city. It was always fun to razz them about the fact that I could be to the amenities in the city faster than they could. Many cities (not all, there are exceptions, always) develop as economic hubs, needing to get things in and out of the city as fast as possible, often at the cost of intercity movement. This leaves it more advantageous, if not in the heart of the action, to live outside of the city with respect to the matter of time. Perhaps people just end up in the suburbs out of happenstance (e.g. they were born there) and never give it any more thought? It would be fascinating to hear from those who gave all three types of places a fair shake and still settled on the suburbs in the end.