this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2024
156 points (99.4% liked)

News

31513 readers
2223 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Rural areas across the U.S. are transforming as affordable housing shortages push people further from urban centers.

Celina, Texas, leads this trend, experiencing a 27% population surge in 2023 alone. It grew from 7,000 residents a decade ago to over 43,000, as reported by the Census.

Lower housing costs and available land attract newcomers, but rapid growth is replacing farmland and small-town traditions with dense developments and chain stores.

While some welcome affordable lifestyles and opportunities, others face rising costs, loss of community, and strained infrastructure.

all 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 40 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Damn city folk ruining the countryside tellyahwat

[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago

It does change things. More traffic, more pollution, higher taxes my property value has gone up 12+% for the last 3 years.

[–] Dogiedog64@lemmy.world 23 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Affordable housing would be more possible in cities if their building codes weren't so heavily calcified by landlords and NIMBYs 40 years ago. Still, it's good that all these small towns are seeing a resurgence in both population and cultural change, even if their original occupants hate it.

[–] whithom@discuss.online -5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Yeah who cares about non-flammable materials and ADA access. Gimme my cheap cracker box!

[–] Dogiedog64@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I meant more along the lines of "There can't be any new high-density housing developments because itll destroy the characterof the area", or "we can't build new public transport infrastructure because the construction will be too loud :(((". You know, shit that everyone except NIMBYs and scumbag landlords actually wants.

[–] whithom@discuss.online 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Ahh got it. Fortunately there is a lot of land outside the city, and I think it would be good to make a few new modern cities with tall low cost rent and a walkable environment. NIMBY can live in peace.

[–] Dogiedog64@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

But you see, that's the thing; the NIMBYs cry and scream and bitch and moan about all these infrastructure projects, claiming they'll ruin everything and lower property values or whatever, but when they're completed, and property values shoot up because people actually want to live there now, they shut up and claim they were never against them in the first place.

Because NIMBYs are hypocrites, and were using public infrastructure the whole time. They'll never move outside of the suburb or city they're in now, because if they did they'd complain that there was no infrastructure there that they were used to.

[–] whithom@discuss.online 1 points 8 months ago

Some people just want to complain. Not much we can do. I suggest giving them what they want and building a new sustainable city run by open minded people.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

its parking minimums that do the most damage to housing. Car companies fucking with everything in this country

[–] whithom@discuss.online 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Well, if cities would implement decent public transit and urban planning, that would be less of an issue. But older cities are hard to retrofit and newer cities have so much sprawl that public transit always feels sparse.

I really think we should focus on building new developments with a small footprint, building tall, and banning cars altogether with a robust transit system. But, then the “who pays for it?” Bullshit starts, gets wrapped up in red tape, and suffocates.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I don't think there's even an "if" there. There's nothing showing parking minimums help anything except increase the size of drainage systems, driveways, and engineering costs.

Parking requirements should be placed on the purchase of a vehicle not the design of a house. If you don't have a car you don't need parking.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 18 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

dense developments and chain stores.

But hear me out.

Population has increased.

We either density now or after we've gone all Detroit with the bungalows, gone broke, and can't afford to densify well.

strained infrastructure

You want bad infrastructure? You get it with bungalow sprawl.

You're either doing mixed-use towers now, or something shittier later when green transit is off the table.

[–] JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago (2 children)

These isolated communities also doom the residents and more importantly their children to a life chained to car ownership.

[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

And the boredom and thus drug abuse that results

From my experience

[–] CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That was already a thing for them in Texas. They're arguably much less isolated now but either way everyone still needs a car.

[–] JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

That's certainly true of most everywhere in America.

I would suggest that instead of running yet another highway through a city centre, the money be spent on buses, or something cheaper than roads - tram lines. Trams could connect these island-esque neighbourhoods and be a boon to the young and the old alike.

Even in a place like Texas, transit could alleviate that feeling that everyone still needs a car.

[–] wolfeh@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] WhyFlip@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

I'm going to hold onto my massive 8,000 sqft lot for as long as possible!