I feel like sometimes people miss that living close to an office usually comes with living close to other amenities like restaurants, grocery stores, etc that you could walk or bike to. So "Just move to a larger and cheaper apartment" is likely a complete change to the way a lot of people live.
I don't want to have to buy a larger house than I need just so I can supply my own office. We already have housing shortages, bigger houses isn't going to help that problem.
I feel like people who make comments like this have only experienced NYC/SF and the deep suburbs of those areas.
There are so many places around the world where you can live in a slightly smaller urban area, live down town, walk to everything, typically have a stronger local community and pay a fraction of what you do in a large metro for a bigger apartment.
I completely understand not wanting to move from a place with easy, walkable access to food + grocery + bar + etc, but there are a huge range of options for cities that you can easily afford a 2+ bedroom and be part of an active down town area.
> I feel like people who make comments like this have only experienced NYC/SF and the deep suburbs of those areas.
Agreed. I don't understand the false dichotomy of either ultra-dense NYC/SF or else having to drive 20 minutes to the nearest shop. That doesn't fit my experience at all.
I live in a small town (~10K people) surrounded mostly by forest and mountains, so relatively rural. This is in California.
But I can walk to just about anything I need (multiple supermarkets, pharmacies, hardware stores, many restaurants, movies, etc). On my bike I can easily get to the far side of town (about a mile away) for even more choices in restaurants and shops, breweries, pubs.
So it is entirely possible to have a house well outside a large city and yet have everything within walking distance.
I don't want to have to buy a larger house than I need just so I can supply my own office. We already have housing shortages, bigger houses isn't going to help that problem.