4 ms·

> the commute times end up being about the same if you ever have to leave your immediate community People routinely leave their community for their job all the

> the commute times end up being about the same if you ever have to leave your immediate community People routinely leave their community for their job all the time here. Go take a look at that map I shared earlier. Most of the people in that neighborhood probably don't work in Princeton. They probably don't even work in McKinney or Fairview. Good chance they work in North Plano, Frisco, Addison, Dallas, maybe Garland. Most people living here are probably driving about an hour to their job, each way, every day. With a lot of those people with those kinds of commutes having that take place on a tollway. They do that because they can buy that 4-bedroom 3-bath 3-car garage ~2,400sqft with a gameroom house on its own lot for $375k. Meanwhile, a similar house within a few miles of their work (say, Frisco) is probably anywhere from $590k to $2M. Property taxes can be pretty steep here, so that $590k house gets like $14k/yr in property taxes in Frisco while that $375k house in Princeton is only $9k/yr, over $400/mo in additional taxes. They could potentially accept a smaller and thus cheaper house, but to them it's not worth the tradeoff. They need that 3-car garage, they need that gameroom. My wife has coworkers who live in Forney and commute to jobs in Plano and Frisco. They do that commute 3-5 times a week and see nothing wrong with it. They value having a large home with tons of space, and with the kind of income they make there's little chance they could afford it anywhere near where those jobs are. Think a security guard and a building engineer (like an on-site maintenance tech for a commercial property) are going to own a $1M+ house? No. But they still want a 3 bedroom home with a pool and a spa and an outdoor kitchen, and they can get that for $300k in Forney. Just trying to share the follow on mindset. If you're having to leave your home by car every day for work, then you're absolutely going to have a car. If you already have the car, why go to the little grocery store at the edge of the neighborhood when you just spend a little more transit time and go to the big store that has everything else you'd want to buy?

9rx 1y ago
> People routinely leave their community for their job all the time here. Sure, where the compensation is sufficient to cover your travel costs you would reasonably consider it. But then transportation costs aren't an issue, making the unaffordability idea that started this moot. But, if we want to move beyond the topic of cost, that just brings us right back to the point that travel time ends up being the same living in the city and living in the country, so what have you gained by living in the city? What one normally thinks you would gain is having other amenities, like bars, restaurants, healthcare, shopping, and just an all round vibrant community right there to enjoy when you get home from work. But the particular city homes we are talking about don't even have that. They are just houses upon houses upon houses all jammed up against each other with nothing in-between. And it is that way because people want it to be that way. They don't want the restaurants, shopping, healthcare, etc. to be anywhere nearby. Even though they cry that they afford to the transportation to get to them, funnily enough. But why? What compels one to be tripping over their neighbour, but at the same time not wanting to engage in a community with them?
- acuozzo 1y ago
  > What compels one to be tripping over their neighbour, but at the same time not wanting to engage in a community with them? Children, among other things. Let's make this concrete. I live ~40 minutes from Washington DC and ~30 minutes from Baltimore. I have three children. I'd need, at minimum, a four-bedroom, two-bathroom property in the city. It will need to be zoned for a good school for obvious reasons. The 30y mortgage on my six-bedroom, 3.5-bathroom home in the suburbs is ~$3,500/month. Can you find a condominium in either city for this price or less? (For reference: my property value at the time of purchase was $575,000.)
  - 9rx 1y ago
    > I'd need, at minimum, a four-bedroom, two-bathroom property in the city. Check out a settler home sometime. They were tiny, one room houses that housed themselves and their eight+ children just fine. You don't need this in any way, shape, or form. I do understand why you find it desirable, though. > It will need to be zoned for a good school for obvious reasons. I don't live in crazy orange man land. What are the (unfortunately, not so) obvious reasons? It befuddles me that different school zones would be different in any way beyond their geographic positioning, which isn't usually a concern when it comes to schooling. I've never heard of such a thing before. > Can you find a condominium in either city for this price or less? What's wrong with where you already are? If you found the lack of jobs, restaurants, entertainment, healthcare, etc. in walking to be a problem, you'd have changed it already. Like we established, the only reason those things aren't found where you are is because you and your neighbours have decided you don't want it. I just don't understand your logic as to why you don't want it, but also don't want to live in the country. What's the benefit of living where you have all the downsides of the city and all the downsides of the country all wrapped up in one?
    - ndriscoll 1y ago
      Attitudes around education in the US vary wildly across the population. To a first approximation, "good schools" are really "good students" (i.e. "good peers"), which generally means that the families within the school's catchment area place higher value on education, which generally correlates with class. There are feedback mechanisms at play here: the people who want a good education for their kids want to be around the types of people who want a good education for their kids, and they will pay a premium to be around the kinds of people who will pay a premium to do so, reinforcing the class effect. It can't hurt to have bright, engaged kids when trying to recruit and retain good teachers either. The net result is that in some areas the schools have literally 0% of students meeting standards while others have most of the students completing the first year or two of university during high school. Somewhere like DC where GP lives, schools struggle to get the kids to show up[0]. Meanwhile I live a 10 minute walk from a school where over half the students are in AP classes and 80% of those pass the AP exams. [0] https://www.nbcwashington.com/investigations/about-4-in-10-dc-students-are-chronically-truant-report-says/3484717/ https://www.nbcwashington.com/investigations/about-4-in-10-d...

9rx 1y ago

> People routinely leave their community for their job all the time here. Sure, where the compensation is sufficient to cover your travel costs you would reasonably consider it. But then transportation costs aren't an issue, making the unaffordability idea that started this moot. But, if we want to move beyond the topic of cost, that just brings us right back to the point that travel time ends up being the same living in the city and living in the country, so what have you gained by living in the city? What one normally thinks you would gain is having other amenities, like bars, restaurants, healthcare, shopping, and just an all round vibrant community right there to enjoy when you get home from work. But the particular city homes we are talking about don't even have that. They are just houses upon houses upon houses all jammed up against each other with nothing in-between. And it is that way because people want it to be that way. They don't want the restaurants, shopping, healthcare, etc. to be anywhere nearby. Even though they cry that they afford to the transportation to get to them, funnily enough. But why? What compels one to be tripping over their neighbour, but at the same time not wanting to engage in a community with them?

acuozzo 1y ago
> What compels one to be tripping over their neighbour, but at the same time not wanting to engage in a community with them? Children, among other things. Let's make this concrete. I live ~40 minutes from Washington DC and ~30 minutes from Baltimore. I have three children. I'd need, at minimum, a four-bedroom, two-bathroom property in the city. It will need to be zoned for a good school for obvious reasons. The 30y mortgage on my six-bedroom, 3.5-bathroom home in the suburbs is ~$3,500/month. Can you find a condominium in either city for this price or less? (For reference: my property value at the time of purchase was $575,000.)
- 9rx 1y ago
  > I'd need, at minimum, a four-bedroom, two-bathroom property in the city. Check out a settler home sometime. They were tiny, one room houses that housed themselves and their eight+ children just fine. You don't need this in any way, shape, or form. I do understand why you find it desirable, though. > It will need to be zoned for a good school for obvious reasons. I don't live in crazy orange man land. What are the (unfortunately, not so) obvious reasons? It befuddles me that different school zones would be different in any way beyond their geographic positioning, which isn't usually a concern when it comes to schooling. I've never heard of such a thing before. > Can you find a condominium in either city for this price or less? What's wrong with where you already are? If you found the lack of jobs, restaurants, entertainment, healthcare, etc. in walking to be a problem, you'd have changed it already. Like we established, the only reason those things aren't found where you are is because you and your neighbours have decided you don't want it. I just don't understand your logic as to why you don't want it, but also don't want to live in the country. What's the benefit of living where you have all the downsides of the city and all the downsides of the country all wrapped up in one?
  - ndriscoll 1y ago
    Attitudes around education in the US vary wildly across the population. To a first approximation, "good schools" are really "good students" (i.e. "good peers"), which generally means that the families within the school's catchment area place higher value on education, which generally correlates with class. There are feedback mechanisms at play here: the people who want a good education for their kids want to be around the types of people who want a good education for their kids, and they will pay a premium to be around the kinds of people who will pay a premium to do so, reinforcing the class effect. It can't hurt to have bright, engaged kids when trying to recruit and retain good teachers either. The net result is that in some areas the schools have literally 0% of students meeting standards while others have most of the students completing the first year or two of university during high school. Somewhere like DC where GP lives, schools struggle to get the kids to show up[0]. Meanwhile I live a 10 minute walk from a school where over half the students are in AP classes and 80% of those pass the AP exams. [0] https://www.nbcwashington.com/investigations/about-4-in-10-dc-students-are-chronically-truant-report-says/3484717/ https://www.nbcwashington.com/investigations/about-4-in-10-d...