Commentary: The Roots of the Mace Congestion Lie in the Housing Crisis in the Bay Area

Share:

The message that was delivered on Thursday was in line with what we have been arguing here on the Vanguard for some time – the problem along Mace Boulevard is not likely to be fixed locally.

As the Enterprise put it: “[E]ven if the city restores the Mace Boulevard corridor to its original configuration as many local residents want, they may not see complete relief from the traffic congestion that has caused so much grief over the last year.”

We have pointed out structural flaws with I-80 that contribute to this problem – the merging from six lanes at UC Davis down to three and the traffic flowing from Mace and Road 32 onto I-80 before the Causeway contributing to that back up.

The problem that the city faces is that, as the amount of time it takes to travel from I-80 to Tremont to Mace decreases, the more traffic will be diverted off I-80 to flow through the town.

The city discussion also focused on the bigger picture in terms of CalTrans possible fixes to I-80, including creating a fourth lane on the Causeway which would improve capacity but also decrease the impact of the UC Davis bottleneck.

But missing from the discussion is the big picture of what is happening to create this problem in the first place – after all, it is not as though the road has changed.  What has changed is jobs and population growth.

In an article in the Guardian that we cited last summer, it notes, “The Greater Bay Area Council estimates that up to 100,000 people commute from the Sacramento area to the Bay Area to work each day. The Greater Sacramento Economic Council estimates that number to be closer to 86,000.”

What has happened is that Bay Area people are fleeing the high cost of housing in the Bay Area and have found Sacramento an alluring target.  But where the people have gone, the jobs have not followed.

Writes the Guardian: “Population growth has led to a boom in industries like real estate, construction and services, but the job hubs still remain along the coast.”

But although Sacramento has been “developing to meet its growing population, it’s unclear if there are enough jobs and industries growing with it to sustain the population boom.”

The same problem occurs in microcosm in Davis as well.

The numbers are getting a bit dated, but they paint an important picture.  From the BAE report, in 2014 there were over 28,000 employed in the Davis area.  Of that, nearly three-quarters (21,016) lived outside the area while only 7,449 lived within in the area.  That means 21,000 people are commuting from outside of the area into Davis each day.

Meanwhile, among those who live in the area, about 24,000, over two-thirds of them work outside of the area – about 16,655.

That means on any given day we have 21,000 people commuting into Davis to work while 16,655 commute outside of the area.

That was data from five years ago which means, if anything, things are probably worse now.

As we see from the commuter numbers, Davis is hardly alone on this scale.  In fact, at the two presentations we have seen from Greater Sacramento, Davis may actually be in better shape here than most communities.

From my perspective, this is suggestive of a several things.

First is that we do not have a good jobs-housing balancing.  You can argue that we have jobs.  We probably need more diversity of jobs, but we do have them.  And we have limitations on housing growth.  But what we do not have is a good match between the type of housing we have and the type of jobs needed to support that housing.

What we see is that most of the people in town, who work, leave town to do so because they cannot find jobs in town to support the cost of living.

What we see is that we have jobs at the university and in town, but those jobs do not allow most of the people who work here to live here.

What we need then is to find a way to match our jobs to housing to support those jobs, and bring in jobs to support that housing.

In general we have understood the need for more housing near jobs as a way to reduce commute time and distance for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.  What we are starting to see is that, while that remains a vital consideration, our very quality of life is starting to depend on finding ways to get people off the highways – because the impact on highways is choking off our residential streets.

Finally, what we are seeing is that the root of the traffic congestion on Mace is not simply a matter of poor planning on a road redesign by our local community, but rather the housing crisis itself that has uprooted hundreds of thousands of people and created a backlog on our roadways in the process.

—David M. Greenwald reporting


Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$USD
Sign up for

Share:

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

41 thoughts on “Commentary: The Roots of the Mace Congestion Lie in the Housing Crisis in the Bay Area”

  1. Ron Oertel

    What has happened is that Bay Area people are fleeing the high cost of housing in the Bay Area and have found Sacramento an alluring target.  But where the people have gone – the jobs have not followed.

    There’s jobs in the Sacramento region, but they don’t pay as much as those in the Bay Area.  That’s why people commute there. 

    They get cheap housing combined with high pay that way.

    The same problem occurs in microcosm in Davis as well.

    That’s true – hence places such as “North, North Davis” (Woodland).

     You can argue that we have jobs.

    You certainly can, especially at UCD.  That’s why there’s a net inflow of commuters through Davis.

    But what we do not have is a good match between the type of housing we have and the type of jobs needed to support that housing.

    Makes no sense, as demonstrated by the strong demand for existing housing in Davis.  See Woodland example for those who can’t (or won’t) pay those prices.

    What we see is that most of the people in town who work, leave town to do so because they cannot find jobs in town to support the cost of living.

    What you see (regarding those who don’t work at UCD) are perfectly-happy commuters primarily to Sacramento, our state capitol.  Many of whom use employer-subsidized public transportation.  (Hopefully, without having to deal with homeless encampments on BOTH ends of their commute across the Causeway, in the future.)

    What we see is that we have jobs at the university and in town, but those jobs do not allow most of the people who work here to live here.

    By “here”, I assume this primarily refers to UCD.  I suspect that most professors live in Davis, but an increasing percentage of other staff live in places like Woodland.

    What we need them is to find a way to match our jobs to housing to support those jobs and bring in jobs to support that housing.

    What we need is to stop listening to the Vanguard’s absurd attempts to encourage more development. As if anyone ever did.

    1. Richard McCann

      I have no idea of how you get to your conclusion from your list of comments. In fact, your comments appear to head the opposite way–that we need MORE housing development in Davis to reach the jobs/housing balance. And to support the cost of that added housing we need more local businesses that keep other commuters here instead.

      1. Ron Oertel

        That would be the argument of development activists. Thankfully, I’m not one of them.

        Actually, there was a point in time in which development activists cited this “imbalance” as a need for more commercial development, to support existing housing. (But, that was 2-3 proposals ago, regarding MRIC at least.)

        The arguments “shift” to match whatever proposal is put forth. But at some point, most folks probably figure out that it’s all just a bunch of nonsense.

        1. Richard McCann

          But again, your listing of issues and comments runs counter to your conclusion at the end of the post. You sound like a “development activist”.

          BTW, I  don’t think commuters are “perfectly happy”. If that was the case, housing prices wouldn’t rise for every mile closer to a major job center. (It was $10,000/mile closer to SF 30 years ago.) And the % of workers who take public transit to Sacrmento is tiny.  This SACOG study shows only 2.5% of regional commuter trips in 2012 where by transit: https://www.sacog.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/chapter_9_economic_vitality.pdf

        2. Ron Oertel

          But again, your listing of issues and comments runs counter to your conclusion at the end of the post. You sound like a “development activist”.

          Again, you’re reading it from your own point of view – as a “development activist”.  Of course you would view it that way!

          But certainly, ARC would lead to more pressure (if not outright SACOG requirements) to grow even more.

          Your link isn’t working for me, but does it show the number of commuters who use public transit to travel to Sacramento, from Davis?  (Which would primarily be those who work in downtown Sacramento, at government jobs which subsidize public transit.)  There’s dedicated commuter bus lines (throughout the region), to connect workers with downtown Sacramento.  (And to Davis/UCD, for that matter.)

          Regardless, there’s no denying that Sacramento is the region’s job center.  As is UCD, to a lesser degree.

          There are a lot of folks who are perfectly happy living in the “suburbs” of Sacramento (including Davis), and working in downtown Sacramento.  And, wouldn’t have it any other way.

          It seems to me that the Vanguard (and its supporters) are continuously trying to “invent” problems that developments like ARC would “solve”. And so far, haven’t been successful.

          Again, I’d suggest that the development activists might gain more traction, if they focused on the number of potholes that ARC promises to pave. (While downplaying the impact of a corresponding increase in traffic, by pretending that the 4,340 parking spaces will be occupied by “permanently-parked” cars.)

          Just a suggestion.

        3. Ron Oertel

          Also found this interesting:

          Richard: “If that was the case, housing prices wouldn’t rise for every mile closer to a major job center.”

          If so, you would think that places such as Natomas, Oak Park, West Sacramento, etc. would have very high housing prices, given their proximity to Sacramento.

          And West Sacramento itself, as somewhat of a job center.

  2. Ron Oertel

    As a side note, this entire article points out what occurs if you add jobs to a community that already has an abundance of them.

    You get the Bay Area, with all of its challenges. (But without the reasonable weather and geography. And certainly no comparison with the cost of housing, there.)

    1. Craig Ross

      I believe it points out the opposite – what happens when you add people without jobs – they commute.  And jobs without housing – they find housing and then commute.

      1. Ron Oertel

        I believe it points out the opposite – what happens when you add people without jobs – they commute. 

        People generally aren’t “added” in the absence of jobs or housing, with the exception of births.  However, one thing I’ve realized is that the availability of jobs within a region (or in a nearby region) is the primary driver of growth and development.

         And jobs without housing – they find housing and then commute.

        People commute everywhere.  The net inflow of commuters provides evidence that Davis already has an “over-supply” of jobs, compared to the size of Davis’ population.

        Some apparently think that even more jobs should be added. Ironically, these are usually the same people who complain about “housing shortages”.

  3. Alan Pryor

    That means on any given day we have 21,000 people commuting into Davis to work while 16,655 commute outside of the area.

    Does that includes UCD employees? If not, the figure becomes much higher. Can you check those figures?

     

     

  4. Todd Edelman

    Extremely bad regional planning is a major factor in the housing crisis — here more accurately called the “Northern California Mega Region Housing-Jobs-Mobility Anti-Equilibrium Clusterf*ck”. Employment was created in the form of jobs sited primarily in the South Bay and San Francisco without any requirement for housing that was either close by or “distance-neutral” (cycling, home working or walking) or via collective sustainable transportation. This was allowed by MTC/ABAG due to lack of skill, will and/or absence of tools to set conditions. This is causing huge economic and cultural displacement that’s not abating and only minimally-addressed by e.g. new housing built by tech giants in Santa Clara County or some transit-oriented development along the Caltrain corridor in certain cities on the Peninsula, and band-aids like “Google Buses”.

    MTC/ABAG did this to itself – to the counties as far east as Solano – but also to the areas administered by SACOG and other counterparts further south along the I-5/I-99 corridor. In the 1970’s when San Francisco was being “Manhattanized” the only recourse e.g. Berkeley had to change things was to testify at City Council in SF or sue.  I am guessing that SACOG officials didn’t go to city council meetings in the South Bay to try to stop – via public comments – the construction of the tech giant campuses, but they shouldn’t have had to either.

    What’s missing is something I’ve mentioned before: A single entity which truly represents the functioning region all the way up to Sonoma County and beyond, to Santa Cruz, and east to the suburbs of Sacramento and to cities in the northern San Joaquin. It might have been possible to do this in a distributed administrative way with political oversight – like how MTC and SACOG are run – but things are so fracked now that it’s clear to me that we need a political structure with a face, a single face, someone we all vote for who answers only to the California Assembly, Senate and Governor, but has a considerable amount of power to balance and integrate housing, jobs and mobility.

    There’s a major study on it, and lots of articles too,  but unfortunately the “Bay Area” (sic) itself is going ahead with all sorts of plans on its own, and these plans, per se, end at the Solano County line.  They exclude the SACOG area, San Joaquin… it’s sad and unwise.

    What’s stopping this from happening? As we can see the “Bay Area” itself is way ahead in various planning strategies. At a Davis Futures Forum event a year or two ago I was told by a SACOG board member that the regions “discuss things”… one would like to travel by public transportation to the necessary meetings to set things in place but it takes hours to get from Sac to San Jose by train…. and yes, we have that Megaregion or Supercounty train and should brand it as such!

    1. Alan Miller

      things are so fracked now that it’s clear to me that we need a political structure with a face, a single face,

      Perhaps, TE’s face?

      someone we all vote for who answers only to the California Assembly, Senate and Governor, but has a considerable amount of power to balance and integrate housing, jobs and mobility.

      Xi Jinping?

      the “Bay Area” (sic) itself is going ahead with all sorts of plans on its own, and these plans, per se, end at the Solano County line.

      Thankfully, a short five minute walk from my house.  Hey . . . where’s the train station?  All is see is tomato fields.

  5. Sharla Cheney

    There is an article in the SF Chronicle today about the difficulty for San Francisco’s teachers in finding housing.  They highlighted two teachers, both of whom live in Sacramento and commute to San Francisco for work everyday.  They complain about the 2 hour each way commute and the 4-hour commute on Fridays.   https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/SF-teacher-s-housing-nightmare-Waking-at-3-30-14569565.php

      1. Ron Oertel

        As with the Bay Area, the availability of cheaper housing outside of Davis has, and will continue to encourage this.  And, Davis has no ability to stop it.  The difference in housing prices predates Measure R, as well.

        As a side note, some were encouraging the city to take a firmer stance with UCD (regarding student housing on campus), so that the sites within the city could accommodate a broader population – including workforce housing.

        Some opposed the city’s pursuit of legal remedies (which ultimately resulted in a settlement).  It’s likely that such advocacy “weakened” the effectiveness of the city’s efforts, resulting in an inferior settlement with UCD.

        As a side note, I recall reading somewhere that the Cannery (at one point) provided some type of preference for UCD employees. But, that the Cannery ultimately advertised outside the region (in the Bay Area).

        1. Ron Oertel

          The problem of course is the detachment of cheap housing from jobs which creates traffic problems.  You seem to be avoiding this problem.

          Not at all. 

          In fact, you seem to be advocating for MORE jobs, in a city that already has an abundance of them – as well as relatively high housing prices.  And, which would likely remain high (or go even higher), if more jobs are added. Which would create additional commuters.

          Makes no logical sense.

        2. Ron Oertel

          The gist of the entire article is about “balance”.

          Commuting patterns show that Davis/UCD already have a “glut” of jobs.

          And, for those who don’t work there, Sacramento is a short distance away via public transit.

          I’d call this situation (e.g., regarding ARC) a “development in search of a problem”, which would simultaneously exacerbate existing problems.

  6. Ron Glick

    Back in 1990, shortly after I moved here, I remember newspaper articles about how by 2010 the region would be one big megalopolis from SF to Sacramento. The problem is that people fought development instead of trying to plan for it. The fact that I-80 hasn’t been widened from the Solano County line to West Sacramento in all that time is a symbol of inaction instead of sensible planning. The inadequate housing construction in both the City of Davis and on the UCD campus is another example. We are now feeling the consequences of pretending we didn’t need to provide for the future infrastructure needs of the community.

    On the other side there are a few things that were done correctly. UCD bought lots of land so it has room to continue its expansion. Also the Capitol Corridor trains have been a great improvement but we could do much more to make them better.

  7. Alan Miller

    The fact that I-80 hasn’t been widened from the Solano County line to West Sacramento in all that time is a symbol of inaction instead of sensible planning.

    It will be many years before I-80 widening even begins.  Billion$.  Year$.  And the end result, as in LA and the Bay Area, more capacity with already over-taxed land use relative to transportation capacity, and the freeway is full the day it opens and runs into the next bottleneck, and the cycle repeats but is never even remotely solved.

    the Capitol Corridor trains have been a great improvement but we could do much more to make them better.

    The passenger rail capacity that was purchased from the railroad has reached it’s limit, and no new trains can be added without a new agreement, something that can only be achieved by greatly increasing capacity which runs in the $100’s of million$ to billion$.  There is a slight move in that direction, but the real dollars needed are not even a glimmer in the government’s eye.  We are basically stuck with the level of service we see many years into the future.  Meanwhile, people view the I-80 widening as a solution.  Don’t bet on it.

    The bike bridge over the causeway will be nice relative to riding next to the freeway, but let’s be realistic about how many people will use that relative to the total volume of people moving over the Causeway.  There are a limited number of people willing to bike 15-20 miles to work each day.

  8. Bill Marshall

    Jobs/housing balance… interesting… too simple (or simpleton)

    Many jobs in Davis are ‘service’ and near/at minimum wage… cannot afford even rentals in Davis…

    MRIP/ARC (whatever) is likely to attract workers in the much higher ranges of income… more likely to rent or own, less likely to commute… more likely to add to other City revenue…

    But some folk ignore (deliberately?) the difference in jobs…. we don’t need an influx of minimum wage employees [they need to commute] … we need to be open to tech/professional land use decisions that would accommodate higher paying employment that would decrease the need for commuting…

    But some are “deniers” and only use the metric of jobs/housing, without looking at the type of employment, and income… those would be those with ‘special agendas’.   And/or i***ts…

    Just my opinion.

    1. David Greenwald Post author

      “Many jobs in Davis are ‘service’ and near/at minimum wage… cannot afford even rentals in Davis…”

      This is the key point. I don’t know how you can conclude that we have plenty of jobs looking at the data that two thirds of the people who live in Davis are leaving down every morning. That’s contributing mightily to the congestion problem.

  9. Alan Miller

    This is all farcical.  We the people can’t order people to live near their jobs.  Rental prices in Davis may be slightly manipulated by government subsidy, but overall this will not shift rental cost demand curves, only skew them.  Similar to climate change, we need to shift our focus away from how to stop it, and focus on how to deal with it.  Not that efforts to cut down on the burning of pollutants of all kinds is a bad thing.  But it’s like trying to turn an oil tanker in a small river, a tanker we that should have begun turning 40 years ago.

      1. Alan Miller

        What’s farcical is you implying that anyone remotely suggested ordering people to live near their jobs.

        I wasn’t implying that.  I’m saying it doesn’t happen overall.  Thus, commuting.

        You’re literally saving hours and creating hours more of leisure time by living near work.

        Yup.

  10. Ron Oertel

    Bill:  “Many jobs in Davis are ‘service’ and near/at minimum wage… cannot afford even rentals in Davis…”

    David:  “This is the key point. I don’t know how you can conclude that we have plenty of jobs looking at the data that two thirds of the people who live in Davis are leaving down every morning. That’s contributing mightily to the congestion problem.”

    The people who are commuting to Davis/UCD are generally not occupying minimum wage jobs.  The same would be true for proposals such as ARC.

    David’s argument is also unrelated to Bill’s argument. Again, people pursue jobs with state government (in Sacramento) by choice, due to the pay, benefits, stability, transit subsidies, etc. No one (other than the Vanguard and perhaps the development interests who support it) is “unhappy” with this arrangement..

    The impacts of jobs at UCD far outweighs anything in the city.

    Minimum-wage jobs are available throughout the region, including locations where housing is cheaper.

    The argument that the two commenters put forth above falls flat on its face.  Virtually no one needs to commute for a minimum-wage job.  And if they were, then “good luck” paying for a place to live anywhere in the region, unless it’s Affordable housing.

    1. David Greenwald Post author

      “The people who are commuting to Davis/UCD are generally not occupying minimum wage jobs. ”

      Correct. They are occupying jobs that pay wages below a Davis living wage. But if you look at the state of the city report, you will see that a huge number of the large job producers in Davis are not high quality jobs.

      1. Ron Oertel

        “They” (those who are working at minimum-wage jobs) are not “commuting” to Davis at all, with the possible exception of UCD students.

        As I noted above, minimum-wage jobs are available virtually anywhere – including in cities with cheaper housing. About the only qualification you need to land one of these jobs is to have a pulse, and to not be a thief. 😉

        But even in less-expensive cities, minimum-wage workers are not earning a “living wage”.

        That’s why people go to college.

        1. Don Shor

          “They” (those who are working at minimum-wage jobs) are not “commuting” to Davis at all, with the possible exception of UCD students.

          The people who staff the coffee shops and retail stores you visit, most of whom earn at or slightly above minimum wage, are often commuting to Davis.

        2. Ron Oertel

          I strongly suspect that virtually no one commutes to Davis, solely for the purpose of working at a minimum-wage job.  They likely have other reasons/connections to Davis or UCD, e.g.,  as students.

          The vast majority of commuters to/through Davis are working at higher-wage jobs in town (or more likely – at UCD).

          Again, minimum-wage jobs are available virtually everywhere, including in cities that are somewhat less-expensive than Davis.

          It is indeed a problem, if anyone looks to a minimum-wage job as a “career” in California.

          As a side note, businesses that pay these types of wages are shifting costs to society, at large (e.g., by creating a need for Affordable housing, subsidized health care, etc.).

          1. Don Shor

            strongly suspect that virtually no one commutes to Davis, solely for the purpose of working at a minimum-wage job. They likely have other reasons/connections to Davis or UCD, e.g., as students.

            There are lots of service jobs in Davis. They mostly pay $12 – 15 per hour. Many of the people working at those jobs do not live in Davis.

        3. Ron Oertel

          To clarify, the vast majority of actual/permanent workers (who aren’t UCD students) are likely earning more than minimum wage.

          But again, jobs at UCD are the true driver.  The city of Davis is a blip on the screen, in terms of jobs.  It’s a college town.

          Sacramento, on the other hand, is a primary employer via government employment (and related activities).  And, not just for Davis – as it draws commuters from the entire region. I’m not sure why some people ignore this basic/obvious fact.

        4. Richard McCann

          Ron

          In my conversations with those working in retail and food shops in Davis, a large proportion are commuting from Woodland and Dixon, and they are not UCD students. I assume most of these jobs are near minimum wage.

  11. Ron Oertel

    “There are lots of service jobs in Davis. They mostly pay $12 – 15 per hour. Many of the people working at those jobs do not live in Davis.”

    At this point, I’ve forgotten exactly what the argument is (e.g., regarding ARC).

    The logic that’s being presented here is that people are already commuting to Davis for relatively low-wage jobs (and are simultaneously ignoring employment at UCD).  Therefore, some want to add some higher-wage jobs to attract even more commuters, I guess.

    Keep trying, guys!  (“A development proposal in search of a problem.”)

    (Personally, I think the Vanguard would do better by focusing on “the number of potholes” that ARC would supposedly pay to fix – on the same road that would experience a corresponding increase in traffic.)

     

    1. Don Shor

      Large and medium size employers in the Davis area other than UCD include:
      Sutter Davis
      Nugget and Safeway stores, Davis Food Co-op (100+ each)
      USDA
      PG&E
      DMG Mori Seiki
      DJUSD (nearly 1000 employees)
      City of Davis (400+).
      Pay scales at those businesses range, but note that several of them have many employees that are at low pay.
      Every commercial center has support staff in janitorial and landscape management. Every retail and food service business (there are hundreds now) has service staff. Wages for those categories are generally not high; not minimum wage, but likely below $20/hour. Every office for professionals has employees in support roles.
      When you add it all up, there are hundreds of employees providing support to your lifestyle in Davis, most of whom cannot afford to live here.
      It is increasingly unlikely that those workers would live in Davis. Many commute in from nearby communities.

      At this point, I’ve forgotten exactly what the argument is (e.g., regarding ARC).

      That you made an unfounded assertion about people commuting in to Davis for low-paying jobs.

      1. Ron Oertel

        That you made an unfounded assertion about people commuting in to Davis for low-paying jobs.

        I don’t think it’s been established either way (regarding who is occupying those jobs), but I noticed that you keep “raising” the wages in our discussion (from “minimum wage”, to $12-$15/hour, and then to around $20/hour).

        Every city has low-wage jobs.  It’s a reason that some are advocating for a “living wage”, Affordable housing, subsidized healthcare, rent control, etc.  If the true cost of a cup of coffee was reflected in its price, things might be different.  But again, that assumes that baristas are relying upon such jobs as a “career”.

        Regardless, if some are commuting to Davis for the sole purpose of working at relatively low-wage jobs, then adding mid/higher wage jobs will create even more commuters. That’s why ARC is proposing 4,340 parking spaces, for example.

      2. Ron Oertel

        In “support” of what Don is stating, the difference in housing prices between Davis and nearby cities will consistently ensure that there will always be a net inflow of commuters to Davis – especially for those at the lower/middle range of the pay scale.  (Or, for those who simply don’t think Davis is “worth” the housing price it commands, compared to nearby options.)

        Again, that predates Measure R, as well.

        And, as a “bonus” for those commuters – they get to send their kids to Davis schools, without being subject to the DJUSD parcel tax.

  12. Rik Keller

    Urban land economics has been discussing the decentralization of employment locations and its effect on the location decisions of households for 50 years. Before that, for decades there was the hub-and-spoke model of monocentric/central city job centers with workers commuting in via public transit

    But the Vanguard has apparently just become aware of the phenomenon of places where employment density is higher than population centers. This gives rise to the phenomenon known as “commuting” where household location decisions weigh housing prices vs. wage vs. travel time/costs in location decisions where to live.

    Strangely enough, places where people want to live are more expensive than places are less desirable. And there are cost and density gradients all over the place.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for