[fsaneq2]

Okay, but what does that have to do with the article? It brings nothing to the table.

Of course we should innovate and keep bringing costs of everything down; this will happen with or without city planning.

[toomuchtodo]

But it does! If you're performing city planning, you should be requiring the installation of solar panels on low income housing. You should be ensuring electric vehicles can be supported (as simple as making a weather proof NEMA dryer plug available for each vehicle parking spot). You must ensure that low income citizens can directly benefit from these cost-reduction technologies.

EDIT:

The only three resources that have been inflating in cost are real estate (can be fixed with policy), education, and healthcare. Those last two can also have their costs driven down with technology.

It's first principles all the way down.

[fsaneq2]

I agree with you, I'm just disappointed with the article I guess -- it seems to dress up completely banal information as research/news.

For instance it basically says that a largely fixed dollar amount that doesn't vary that much by house, electricity consumption, looks large if you make $10,000 a year but looks tiny if you make $100,000 a year.

[stuaxo]

I guess having denser cities where cars aren't needed would help too.

[ruste]

If you do that then they'll just build less low income housing...

[toomuchtodo]

Then we build low income housing ourselves:

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/these-tiny-hou...

[ruste]

Good. Do it, but raising the cost of building low income housing is going to lower the rate that it's build at.

[toomuchtodo]

Not necessarily, if you can offset the higher cost (leading to lower ongoing costs) with cheap financing.

[ruste]

And where's that going to come from? The money has to come from somewhere. Somebody will be paying that extra cost and they won't like it.