Convinced? Rate this contribution from the community — and help make the best ideas visible.
3 comments
Join the discussion: ask questions, challenge ideas, and add context so the post becomes clearer.
1000 characters remaining
D. M.
8 months ago
I see urbanization more as a problem than a solution.
Those who do not contribute to the urban area should not live in the urban area either. Retirees to Mallorca and welfare recipients to the Jura (somewhat exaggeratedly formulated) ...
0
D. M.
8 months ago
I have been living on the outskirts of the city for 30 years and will soon retire. For me, it would effectively be a sensible solution not to live in the city anymore. I would like to move out of the city now, but my partner does not. It is quite possible that I am not representative.
If everyone wants to go to the mountain, it gets crowded at the summit. Those who want to live in the city have to come to terms with the costs of scarce goods (living space).
Maybe it also depends on whether a person sees themselves more as a herd or a pack animal (aka prey or hunter).
Those who have contributed to the current quality and attractiveness of the city for decades have had decades to optimize their living situation (ownership, cooperative) or to come to terms with the fact that the city can become an expensive place in old age.
0
O. H.AuthorPartner in Crime
8 months ago
If you have lived in the city all your life and retire, would you then find it a sensible solution that you can no longer live in the city?
The pressure on rental prices is precisely caused by the constant influx and the high attractiveness of the urban area. From my point of view, the housing shortage thus particularly unfairly affects those who have contributed to the current quality and attractiveness of the city over decades.