[toomuchtodo]

As someone who would never move to an urban area, there’s nothing that can be done to make it attractive to a subset of us. I don’t want to live among large amounts of other humans. I don’t want to crawl through traffic when I have to use my car. I’d rather live on acres of land far from the city, and pay for the privilege with regards to infrastructure and energy costs (I have solar on my roof, electric cars, and we offset our carbon emissions). We live a far better life than if I had to earn enough on a single income to support my family “in the city” (forget the Bay Area, even West Loop condos in Chicago are crazy expensive).

Remote work uptake will accelerate this trend, versus being forced to live in a city to be close to work. Density isn’t a given, or requirement to live well, and we shouldn’t be so foolish to push it (through half baked policy) on others if they don’t want it.

Side note: Support and advocate for remote work!

[adrianN]

As I said, there is a subset of the population that would never live in a city, just as there is a subset that would never live outside a city. But I think that encouraging more people to choose the rural lifestyle by essentially subsidizing it is not the way to go.

[toomuchtodo]

If it’s not subsidized, there’s no issue. I agree it shouldn’t be subsidized, and that we’ll need technology to drive down the cost of low density living (rooftop solar [cheap renewable energy in general], electric vehicles [cars, light and heavy trucks, buses], improved longevity for roads and sidewalks, led streetlights, muni fiber and efficient wireless infra, etc). That’s what technology and innovation are for.

Just as with roads (where building more doesn’t help alleviate demand), you must destroy demand for everyone to live in the same spot if you want affordable housing. You do that with fungible remote work and (efficiently and sustainably) providing high quality of life not tied to a place in space time.

[jfengel]

I think it would also help to increase the visibility of those costs. The impression I get is that a lot of people take for granted that roads just appear, for example, while the taxes for commuter rail and public transit are an imposition.

[wutbrodo]

I don't think this is ever going to happen, at least not to any appreciable degree. People are powerfully stupid enough on their own, especially when it comes to status quo bias, and especially especially when it's in their own interests. There's a stable equilibrium in which road travel and sparsity aren't heavily subsidized, but I don't see any path there that involves trying to convince people first.

[toomuchtodo]

Agree entirely! I am an ardent supporter of accountability and transparency in government (spending including).

[avgDev]

I feel the same possible for different reasons. I grew up in a small city in Europe, however, I live in the suburbs of chicago now. I could make $25k more in the city right now. I am a decent developer I guess, I get recruiters contact me about jobs in the city but I just cannot imagine commuting or moving to the city. When I was younger I enjoyed going clubbing and bars but it got old.

Now, I just want the kids to get off my lawn and have some peace.

[tryitnow]

Who is pushing density on others when they don't want it?

I just don't see that happening.

[ellard]

The folks who are pushing for more housing to be built in the bay are pushing density on folks who are against it.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying that that's good or bad.

[fountainofage]

Eh, those same folks against density happily vote in another office park that brings in 20,000 new jobs. So I'm a bit hesitant to say they're getting density pushed on them. More like they're finally expected to pay for their free lunch.

[ellard]

Whether or not it's deserved doesn't change that it's still more people than the existing population who votes no wanted. Playing devil's advocate for a moment, the companies that built those office parks knew what the housing situation and politics were like before they were built and they agreed to the terms. They could've chosen a different location if they wanted to.

[toomuchtodo]

Those jobs drive up the value of their existing homes if additional housing stock isn’t built to support said jobs.

[fountainofage]

I know why they're doing it, I'm arguing density isn't getting forced on them. Rather it's saying "hey, you should pay for that."

[duckqlz]

Hong Kong! The zoning for that place is bananas.

[silon42]

People installing elevators.

[malyk]

The problem though is that you likely /cant/ pay for the privilege of living your rural life.

It cost $2 to $3 million to build the undivided 2 lane road for each mile out to your house. Assuming an acre per house on that road (both sides) (208 ft of frontage per house gives you 25 per side and 50 on both sides of the road) Then you personally would have had to shell out ~$50,000 to build the road...as would all 50 of your neighbors. More if the average property is larger than an acre.

https://blog.midwestind.com/cost-of-building-road/

Yearly maintenance of that road is also not cheap. Figures vary a lot based on location, but lets go with NY’s lower bound...$4500 per year per mile. You and your $50 neighbors would be paying about $90 a year each. Not bad.

https://blog.midwestind.com/much-cost-maintain-mile-road/

But, every 10 to 15 years your road will have to be completely resurfaced, which is about $625,000 per mile or $12,500 for you and your 50 neighbors (~$1000 per year)

https://www.alphapavingtexas.com/faq/asphalt-paving-life-exp...

And thats just the roads. You have to have a water/sewer system. You need power, telephone, cable, landscaping for the roads, snow removal (possibly), and a myriad of other services provided by your municipality.

You and your 50 neighbors are certainly NOT paying for all those yourselves.

In a city, that same mile of road likely costs $4-$6 million per mile. but instead of sharing that cost with 50 neighbors you are sharing it with 5,000 or more.

Anyway, I love the idea of a rural property. But let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that you and your rural neighbors are actually paying the true costs to live out there.

I’m struggling to find a blog series that talked about this in depth right now, but it’s just not financially sustainable to build/maintain rural and even suburban infrastructure given the economic base in those areas. We’ve really backed ourselves into a corner.

[toomuchtodo]

Besides roads, I don't need any other services. I can provide my own power (solar), my own water (well), my own sewer (septic field), wireless service alone would be fine (no cable or telephone), and I can skip the snow removal with a 4 wheel drive vehicle (or even not if I'm in a warmer climate in the US).

Rural life has existed for over a century, so forgive me when it's waved away as too costly. Would some standards need to change? Possibly, but it’s not impossible.

[malyk]

Living off the grid is nice for you. How many other people can do the same or want to do the same? I legitimately dont know, but my guess would be that it isnt the majority

That being said, there is a difference between true rural, like you are talking about, and “rural” in the sense of exurb mcmansions on 2 acre lots, which I think much of the “i hate urban areas” folks have in mind.

[hedvig]

I just want to make sure though that you'd still be willing to make the tax contribution or voting support to infrastructure and transit projects for urban areas that might not (but probably still do) affect you directly.

[toomuchtodo]

If the data shows I benefit, I would not be against a time and dollar commitment. But just as I’m not asking for subsidies (and demand transparent accounting), I’m not willing to subsidize urban living if I receive no benefit. I don’t want to support unnecessary artificial scarcity.