[jf22]

Yes, but the houses farther out are affordable because they lack those amenities.

The same narrative plays out over and over again. "I can't afford a house with an easy drive to a supermarket and library, and I want to be carless."

Well yeah, so does everybody else, which is why that type of housing is expensive.

[eropple]

Yes, of course! And it's reasonable to think that living in both modest precarity and isolation is worse than living in somewhat more severe precarity; "affordable" places to live are inferior goods!

The problem, fundamentally, is that we, collectively and as a country, need to create more good places, rather than to exile people to the bad but affordable ones. We need a concerted effort to have strong towns and to put cars at the edge and not the center of those towns in order to have a healthy community future, and just sneering that you can buy a house in the hinterlands is both non-responsive and cruel to boot.

[jf22]

I agree with you. However, the discussion about housing is normally around how it's worse now than it was in the past, and these types of dynamics have existed for a long time.

[eropple]

It absolutely is worse than it has been in the "good places", though. Because we have more people, but not more good places.