undefined

points

[-]

This is complicated, though, by the question of how you get there: suburbs may have lower land prices but everyone buys more of it and needs the expense of having a private car (usually one per adult). In the region where I live, 20-35% of household income is spent on cars and that doesn’t include the expense of the land devoted to them or road maintenance.

If you live in a dense environment where you don’t need a car because walking and transit cover your normal life, recouping that much money often more than pays for the higher cost per square foot of building space.

by mathgeek6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> In the region where I live, 20-35% of household income is spent on cars and that doesn’t include the expense of the land devoted to them or road maintenance.

Statistically, a large amount of that is beyond what they need most of the time (whether size, quality, or range).

by acdha5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Totally, but it’s interesting how basically everyone I know who moved to the suburbs to save money pays roughly as much for housing (things like lawn care services add up) plus an order of magnitude more on cars.

by mlrtime8 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Then you just transfer that money to the landlords, and then remove the flexibility and convenience of leaving that city anytime you want.

30% of New Yorkers spend > 50% of their income on rent.

by acdha5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> 30% of New Yorkers spend > 50% of their income on rent.

My point was that’s a bit less than the median suburbanite here spends on housing and cars combined. That doesn’t mean either option can’t be improved but that these comparisons should compare the whole lifestyle cost. Otherwise you’re making the same mistake Americans do saying they pay much less in taxes than Europeans without including the additional spending we make for healthcare, college, childcare, etc.