housing development

Peijen · Post by **Peijen** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:41 pm

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprime

Pretty interesting. Kind of long. What do you think?

I kind of agree with there will be more walkable community (my preference).

Post by **Jonathan** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 5:11 pm

fuck I wrote a long reply and the iPhone ate it. Short version: he is right.

quantus · Post by **quantus** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 8:24 pm

Dwindlehop wrote:the iPhone ate it.

Hrmmm, I wonder if high school students can get away with that excuse for not doing homework...

VLSmooth · Post by **VLSmooth** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:29 pm

I also think the article was interesting and I'm happy to have chosen a place near work, restaurants, shopping centers, etc.; even though my area is arguably on the fringe (case in point, no metro in walking distance). Convenience is a mighty powerful force.

Side Note: Although I always knew there was a correlation between expense and residents, I now think I underestimated the benefits of living in an fairly expensive area. Honestly, I was more afraid of the snooty country club stereotypes instead of the propensity for crime.

George · Post by **George** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 3:06 am

No. He started with a clear prejudice against suburbs and towards cities and let that drive his analysis and conclusions. Vinny is an excellent example. He's in what is clearly a suburb, yet there are certain services available within walking distance. Some (many? most?) older small towns are highly walkable, yet still have primarily detached housing. Some (many? most?) people would rather live in a traditional house rather than a multi-family dwelling, though individual willingness to maintain a yard may vary. Those people are getting stuck in urban areas because they simply can't justify the commute. It's certainly possibly that America will reurbanize, but its equally likely that jobs will decentralize. Lets face it, there's no advantage to most businesses being in or near downtown. I haven't followed it in recent years, but certainly in the late nineties, there were a lot of businesses being established in so-called "technology parks" out between suburbs and shopping malls.

Edit: Ok, I didn't read the whole article. I just got offended by the McMansion comment and felt the need to rant.

Peijen · Post by **Peijen** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:51 am

George wrote:Edit: Ok, I didn't read the whole article. I just got offended by the McMansion comment and felt the need to rant.

Yeah, whatever george. Just because you are too poor to buy a house doesn't mean he is wrong.

quantus · Post by **quantus** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:59 pm

George wrote:but its equally likely that jobs will decentralize. Lets face it, there's no advantage to most businesses being in or near downtown.

Eh, not so true. There are a lot of benefits to collocated teams rather than having everyone remote. Given that, it's harder to staff a company in suburbs because your potential employee pool will be smaller. However, if you do have a larger pool to chose from, you now have to work harder to keep the good people from finding a better opportunity. On the other hand, with a smaller pool, you're stuck with more mediocrity.

I grew up in suburbs and I must say that the diversity and range of choice I had then is far exceeded by what is possible living in/around the major cities around the bay here.

Post by **Jonathan** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm

quantus wrote:I grew up in suburbs and I must say that the diversity and range of choice I had then is far exceeded by what is possible living in/around the major cities around the bay here.

Word.

I think the article's comments about modern house build quality are dead-on. I'm not sure I'm in agreement about the superior build quality of older residences, but I do think the housing industry has long clung to outmoded construction methods for reasons I do not understand.