This is my hangup too, and it crosses over into the craze around building high density housing in California.
I don’t want high density housing. I don’t think anyone does. I want a yard for my dogs to play, for my wife to nurture the garden she has always wanted, for fruit trees, a garage where I can work on my car, etc...
We have so much land all around this country and no one is using it.
> We have so much land all around this country and no one is using it.
As the old real estate mantra goes, "Location, Location, Location!"
Of course you can buy a house with a yard and a large garage, but can you buy it on a regionally-adjusted salary and be reasonably close to a town and your workplace? Locality is still important for the vast majority of jobs, even in this age when the capability to telecommute is here.
I think the key contributor to this asymmetry is the scarcity of the human attention. People remember a handful of cities/towns which they associate with prosperity, despite the fact/possibility that far more areas are also prosperous. It's the same reason that a few dozen universities at the top of the rankings thrive, while perfectly decent schools just below them struggle to attract applicants.
Whether the issue at mind is red/blue state or rural/urban, Americans have become more risk-averse when it comes to moving to different regions.
I don’t want high density housing. But I want things that require high density housing: the ability to walk to lots of places and good public transportation when I want to go farther.
I’ve compromised on an expensive lower density location which has a bit of that. I’m happy with it, but plenty of people will make those compromises differently.
It would be great if we could all live in big houses with big yards and have stores and restaurants down the street, but basic economics and geometry means you can’t.
Many people without families don't see the need for a yard/garage/garden when they live on their own and can take public transit in a high-density area. These people value proximity to bars/restaurants/experiences and are okay with trading off space for a shorter commute more things to within their nearby surroundings.
I know that a lot of property owners are out of touch, but "I don't think anyone wants high-density housing" is really at another level. Time for you to take your fingers out of your ears.
Staten Island and the western halves of Queens and Brooklyn are not what I would call "high density". I don't think the northern part of the Bronx would count, either.
More like 4.3 million. A lot of people don't feel strongly about density. They just live wherever makes the most sense based on the pros and cons. This is why people move out of the city when they have to raise a family.
Historically people placed business like buildings around town centres, as these were easy to reach. Lawyers, accountants, doctors and so on were supposed to be within walking distance. But these days this is becoming less and less practical, as everyone including back office employees, software developers, analysts, and other non customer non reach essential staff is crammed in those places. I seriously think planning should be made such way that any non essential business activity should be done outside cities. Downtown areas should be focused on face to face essential staff and the rest of the city on life focused businesses (restaurants, cinemas, and so on). The cities are planned at the moment is archaic.
I don’t want high density housing. I don’t think anyone does. I want a yard for my dogs to play, for my wife to nurture the garden she has always wanted, for fruit trees, a garage where I can work on my car, etc...
We have so much land all around this country and no one is using it.