[temp-dude-87844]

Just as the article notes, free lots in out-of-the-way towns aren't too attractive because you still have to spend many dozens of thousands of dollars to put on a house on it, and then you live in an out-of-the-way town with few ways to resell. At that point, you could move to the rural fringe of a populous area, and be a lot closer to amenities, entertainment, good schools, healthcare, childcare, shopping, etc.

In dense and popular areas, it's the land prices that contribute to high housing prices. In less popular areas, it's construction prices that dominate the cost.

[ghaff]

>At that point, you could move to the rural fringe of a populous area, and be a lot closer to amenities, entertainment, good schools, healthcare, childcare, shopping, etc.

The Bay Area is something of an exception because of geography. But, in general, drive out an hour from a lot of major and certainly mid-sized cities, and it's pretty easy to get out to a rural or exurban area and have a ton of space if you want it for a pretty reasonable amount of money--while still having easy access to urban or near-urban amenities.

[watwut]

But it also means over 2 hours of driving a day for a job. And if a kid wants to go to sports club, art club, visit friend or whatever, one parent has to drive him there that same distance every time.

[jacurtis]

This article is mostly focused on people who have remote jobs. So the daily commute is not really a concern.

I grew up in a rural town in Wisconsin and we had to drive an hour into the city of Madison, WI to do anything "city-like". We just did it every Saturday as a matter of habit. Anything you needed throughout the week that required going into the city was just scheduled or done on Saturday. We did it all on one day and have one "commute" per week. It really wasn't a huge deal. Even living in San Fran or Seattle or any other big city, it is likely that you spend more than 2 hours each week in transportation time. I recently moved out of Seattle, but even to do errands on a weekend we spent many hours sitting in traffic. We might only be driving 10 miles, but it still takes an hour or longer.

I could even back up my argument that I spent less time sitting in cars each week when I lived in rural Wisconsin than when I lived in the heart of Redmond Washington.

Life is different in rural areas. I think that is what most people miss. You won't have that same urban culture in rural America. You won't be running your kids to sports clubs, art clubs, etc. You will spend more time with yourself and your family. Your kids' activities will be with community programs from the rec center, the schools, and/or church group. The goal isn't to live city-life in a rural area. It is a shift in how you live.

For some people, rural life isn't for you. If you cherish those elements of city-life then you need to live in the city.

But what has changed in the world now is that for many people (myself included) we were forced to move to a city because of the work we chose to pursue. For those people, there is now an opportunity to live a more rural lifestyle and still be able to maintain jobs that we enjoy (through remote work).

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Let's not forget the access to moving image culture that the network now provides. It used to be that life in a rural community doomed you if you were interested in seeing the most current and/or off-beat, international cinema, and at one point, even TV. That's just no longer the case. And the effect extends to all the "new" culture that appears on e.g. YouTube ... given reasonable internet service, you can be just as connected with all this as you would have been in NYC.

It's a change along only one particular metric, but it's a big change, nevertheless.

[ghaff]

That assumes you work in the city and/or go in there all the time for activities. I'm remote anyway but if I did commute it would be into a suburban office park much closer to where I live. I maybe go into the closest major city once a month or so and that's fine for me. I grew up a similar distance from Philadelphia and maybe was in the city once a year.

[floren]

> and then you live in an out-of-the-way town with few ways to resell

Why do we always buy/update our house for the next owner?

[Dylan16807]

Designing to resell at a high price is overrated, but wanting the ability to resell at all isn't a bad idea.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Options, options, options. Knowing that resale will take 1-6 months rather than 1-6 years, maybe longer, means that if your life circumstances change (as happens to many people), you will be in a much better position to respond to them.

[watwut]

Ability to move away, whether because you found better job or better location matter. And second house in place you don't care about is costing money on taxes and maintenance.

[romanovcode]

Yeah. What happened to passing the house in the family?

[MattGaiser]

By the time you end up dying nowadays, your kids have long owned a home and potentially your grandkids as well.

[ghaff]

People are also often mobile and have different wants/needs in a house. There's a good chance that the family home isn't what they want need.

[redisman]

I’ve also seen many older people sell the old big house and use the proceeds to buy a conveniently located condo and use the rest as their retirement fund

[LanceH]

I've just been discussing this with my wife. We're thinking of just buying a bigger enough lot that we could build more than one house.

[bradlys]

A privilege that few are offered.

Most families have to sell the house before the parents die because the parents can’t even use the house anymore. Maybe it’s more common but it seems most parents die in a facility or some other special housing for end of life. They have to use that money they got from the house sale to pay for the end of life care.

Basically, end of life care siphons off any chances of generational wealth unless exceptionally well off.