Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would actually be in favor of something like this. Here is the question: Will it be cheaper? I'm only one person. I don't need THAT much room. However, will it be cheap?
It's only going to far if they build them and nobody moves in. Since we can't force realestete to be cheaper in high demand areas without doing a lot of artificial things then this isn't a problem. Build and few and see if there is a demand. If there is then those folks are going to be glad for the option wont they?
It's only going to far if they build them and nobody moves in. Since we can't force realestete to be cheaper in high demand areas without doing a lot of artificial things then this isn't a problem. Build and few and see if there is a demand. If there is then those folks are going to be glad for the option wont they?
This is the way I see it. San Francisco is not a cheap city. There isn't alot of land to build on either. This might work for young professionals or hipster types.
Let the greenies prove how green they really are. Move into your beehives loons. That is exactly what the agenda 21 folks are counting on the useful idiots.
If you can only afford to move into an apartment the size of dorm room, then that area's cost-of-living index is simply too high. I understand that model appeals to some people, but most Americans won't go for that. And forget raising a family in something like this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.