[array_key_first]

That's because many smaller cities and suburban or rural areas are economically defunct, so property is cheap because it's essentially worthless (you can't make money off of it).

Property is expensive in, say, NYC because you can use that property to do A LOT of economic activity. Property is cheap in Ponder, Texas because you can use that property to do fuck all, so you better take what you can get.

You can choose to live in Ponder, Texas, but the economics of that aren't too hot.

[cyberax]

> Property is expensive in, say, NYC because you can use that property to do A LOT of economic activity. Property is cheap in Ponder, Texas because you can use that property to do fuck all, so you better take what you can get.

Well, exactly. And allowing SROs and then bunkbeds will only make this _worse_. Your housing costs in NYC will keep _rising_, while the living conditions for _everyone_ will keep going down.

Death spiral, in other words.

[array_key_first]

The COL goes up in cities because they continue to be more productive, and that's just how money works. I don't know what to tell you, there's just no way around that. Opting to anarchist mode implode the economy so you get slightly cheaper housing is insane.

[cyberax]

"The pollution in cities goes up because they continue to be more productive, and that's just how money works. I don't know what to tell you, there's just no way around that. Opting to anarchist mode implode the economy so you get slightly cleaner water is insane."

Sounds familiar?

And no, I'm not proposing anything "anarchist". Tax (or cap&trade) the dense office space, provide tax breaks for remote work, provide incentives for jobs in smaller cities.

That's exactly how we solved the problem of industrial pollution.

[array_key_first]

Suburbs cause more pollution per capita than cities, and you know that. Because, again, obviously, suburbs are just less efficient. Moving, say, water 100 miles to reach 100 people is worse than moving water 1 mile to reach 100 people.

> That's exactly how we solved the problem of industrial pollution.

It's not, at all. We 'solved' it by just pushing it somewhere else, and then we actually helped it by making more efficient processes.

It's not that by you living in the suburbs you have no pollution. No, the pollution is made in the city, and then we just transport the end result sometimes thousands of miles to your house so you don't have to see it. That process is horribly inefficient - which is why it's fair to say that suburbs are essentially on the welfare of the cities around them.

Everything you have - water, concrete, food, electricity - is coming from denser centers. You don't actually pay enough in taxes to cover that, but it's fine, because that's the cost of typical American culture.

And, speaking of American culture - what you're advocating is very much the status quo. The US is extremely distributed compared to the rest of the developed world, and we pay a high price for it. We use absurd amounts of water, energy, and money to maintain our suburban lifestyle.

[cyberax]

> Suburbs cause more pollution per capita than cities, and you know that.

Nope. Most of the excess pollution is attributable to gas cars, and they're being replaced by EVs. And small/mid-size EVs have less carbon footprint than transit.

> It's not, at all. We 'solved' it by just pushing it somewhere else, and then we actually helped it by making more efficient processes.

We solved the pollution by forcing companies and consumers to clean up their act. And yes, this caused them to be less efficient initially.

> Everything you have - water, concrete, food, electricity - is coming from denser centers.

Now you're just incoherent. Food is coming from dense cities? Electricity is generated in office buildings? Sorry, but no.

> And, speaking of American culture - what you're advocating is very much the status quo.

No, I'm advocating the return to status quo ante, with improvements (EVs, self-driving taxis, remote work).