Well, you’re not really wrong. Probably getting downvotes cause this is a pretty conservative-learning sub, at least among those who already own.
The market no doubt does create incentives counter to what’s actually viable long-term or “good” for a region, defined as widespread access to affordable housing. Suburbs are environmental disasters – not because they have to be, but because they’re sort of designed to be for convenience. From the water wasted on lawns to the massive highways to service just a few neighborhoods to the gas spent to drive 15 minutes to the grocery store cause you can’t walk.
But since half the folks here either own an oversized suburban house or rent them out to someone, they don’t like to hear it.
Where I live in Austin it’s a bit of an experiment. We’re building up and out at the same time, as well as some mass transit to ideally link the outer areas to the city center a little better…maybe. It’ll be interesting to see what happens. Cities like LA, Phoenix, Dallas…they’re too far gone. Sprawling to an extend that’s not really fixable except through massive expense.
NIMBYs really are the root cause of most housing problems. Some things can’t be helped – like just running out of room to build in certain places. But most places have artificial constraints designed to protect property values, not help people afford homes.
Said another way: the housing market is just another stock index now, right next to the Dow and Nasdaq.
Discover more from Today Headline
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.