|
|
|
|
|
|
by llamathrowaway
2525 days ago
|
|
|
> If they built decent residential areas where families could live, DINKs and other childless folks would move there first I am not sure. If I want to live without a child, I would probably not spend money on a second bedroom. I would prefer the space below my building to be a gym rather than a daycare. I will care more about good bars than good schools and parks. > Families are and are permanently expensive in post-industrial society There is also a chicken and egg problem: the fact that new developments target childless people is one of the reasons raising a child is expensive. It might actually be one of the biggest reason in London considering how much people are spending on housing. |
|
|
I would. I've rented 2BRs my entire adult life. I needed an office--that room's for work (even if that work is my side projects or whatever), the rest of the house is for living. We bought a 3BR and collapsed a wall to make it a 2BR. One bedroom and one (very large) office.
> There is also a chicken and egg problem: the fact that new developments target childless people is one of the reasons raising a child is expensive.
New developments mostly target people with disposable income. That rules out most families.
I am, to be clear, in favor of subsidies and policies to encourage urban families; I think having kids in neighborhoods is a good thing for the neighborhood as a whole. But you're ascribing intent where none seems to exist.