Actually, the labor and land costs invert if you go to really unpopular areas, where the land is much cheaper, but no one lives there so labor is much more expensive.
Of course, vinyl windows, cheap flooring, builder grade kitchen and bathrooms bring the cost down significantly. But it still adds up. Foundations aren’t cheap.
Thats what puzzles me.
What changed in the dynamics of the american society in such way that new cities are no longer built? I get it in europe there barely and land left to develop, but the us and canada have plenty.
I can sort of paint the picture of what takes place here (Canada - also a large land mass country).
we have a rather large public rail system run by the government (GO Transit: https://www.gotransit.com/en/)
it is fairly cost effective, modern, and the trains are all new and comfortable.
we also have a major problem with a population which seems to refuse to accept they cant afford to live where they want.
Everything is about "affordable housing in Toronto", but this is unrealistic.
Once i had a conversation at work on this. A younger employee was complaining that he wasnt able to afford a nice house in Toronto and how "unfair" this was.
The problem is he was making these comments to 5 others, not one of us lived in Toronto either, as we cant afford it.
He refused to commute, and felt he was somehow "entitled" to live where he (and millions of others) want to live.
So in short, while the US and Canada have plenty of space, the population doesn't want to live there because the commutes are around an hour each way to work.
we also have serious NIMBY issues, where any attempt to increase population density is met with fierce resistance by the local residents who are concerned about their own property values.
It seems like the main issue is proximity to work and the reasonable demand for a short commute.
If that need would be satisfied then i think the resulting effect of wanting to build more in already crowded cities wouldnt be there, thus nimby’ism wouldnt be an issue because either since locals wouldnt feel threatened.
When i moved to london uk i had the same opinion as your colleague. I wanted a place to live as close as possible to work so that i would spend as little time wasted on commute as possible.
But remote work gave me the option to live anywhere and as such i chose an area outside london. Having the option to leave crowded centres i took it because it satisfies my need for work and a short commute.
So i am wondering isnt the root of all evil the fact that high paying jobs are clustered around large urban centres? Shouldnt tech have solved this issue by now? Even if people prefer office work, cant this work be done in smaller urban areas? Or at the edge of large cities such that people can easily commute from surrounding areas? I get it that in the last blue collar work had to be done in city centres so everyone can access services. But why do software engineers need to be seated in expensive city centres? Or indeed accountants, or even lawyers.
> Everyone wants that 3,000 square foot house, and naturally it has to be within walking distance from work.
The density that was built 100+ years ago was built pre cars. The cities that are dense are dense because they happened to develop at the right time.
Now, everyone in the political process of building a new city is going to question where they are going to have space for large cars, which leads to parking lots, 35ft+ or 10m+ wide streets, and of course quarter acre lots for detached single family homes with garages and driveways.
Creating a new Manhattan type region is simply out of the question due to costs. If the nation cannot even do proper upkeep on existing Manhattan, then there is not much chance of digging all the rail tunnels and etc etc for a new Manhattan.
I think the root of this issue is that we are forced to cluster in large cities for access to jobs. I think the way we approach blue collar work is wrong and tech should have solved it by now. There is no reason why we cant move most high end jobs to either small towns or in the proximity of large cities but in areas easily accessible from suburbs.
No need for a new manhattan. We need a totally new approach and it must be linked to how we work. I would be very happy to live in a small town, with narrow streets but well organised fast, cheap and reliable public transport, and work either remote or onsite but without the need to commute 2 hours a day total (24 hours of my life each 7 days).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area
A bunch of places towards the top of the list (not just a few) have doubled or more in population over the past 30 years. It is just that in the US people have a death wish and often flock to places like Phoenix and Las Vegas and San Bernardino rather than some place sensible and organize cities into the same endless sprawl everywhere.
