Being able to take a few minutes out of the workday here and there to attend to minor home duties (laundry, pets, deliveries, etc.) is a pretty significant extra perk on top of the time savings of avoiding the commute.
Yes and you do these things during the day and not during the time when everyone else is home from work. I go shopping at various times, but when I go to the stores during the "return from work" rush hour right after common work end times, it's way more busy, queues are longer, etc. WFH is the best.
Hollywood is smack in the middle of one of the most notorious sheriff's departments in the United States [1][2] with lots of ongoing prosecutions and a history of federal convictions. They know exactly how bad the police are and show a idealized version in media that's very fictional.
If the writers introduced the so-called good guys as the Grim Reapers or Compton Executioners [3], the viewers wouldn't believe it.
I should have "not nearly as fictional". I know some of it's true, some of it's 'ripped from the headlines', some is rumor, but nothing Hollywood does is ever entirely accurate. Even the documentaries (maybe especially the documentaries)
Because they had a nice revenue stream running short-hop flights between those cities and didn't want high-speed rail cutting into it. Routes under 300 miles or so are the sweet spot for HSR where you can actually save time going from downtown to downtown instead of dealing with the airport rigamarole.
Because that means apartment buildings become illegal?
Homeownership is all well and good, but sometimes you really do just need a place to live for a year or two, and having to do a full-fledged real estate transaction at each end of that period is a lot of friction.
The tax the poster proposed was a de facto ban which was my point. But even then it wouldn’t work because some land is more desirable than others and by encumbering land ownership you encourage those that own the more desirable land to extract as much value as possible.
The thing we are dancing around in this thread is do landlords largely determine the housing prices. I think not. I think it’s supply constraints and government subsidized mortgages. These are largely issues driven by regular home owners not landlords.
In many cases, the superfluous nooks and crannies on 5-over-1's are mandated by local zoning rules that call for "façade articulation" on buildings occupying larger amounts of street frontage (I suppose to conceal the unthinkable horror of a big building existing in a city).
You can't really go wrong with Marcella Hazan's books. She was an evangelist for traditional Italian recipes and methods in the US starting in the 1970s much the same way Julia Child was with French cuisine. Her marvelously simple tomato/onion/butter sauce is revelatory.
There are plenty of small-to-medium-sized cities (25K–250K) with sufficiently intact city cores and higher-density corridors where it's still very reasonable to imagine increased cycling uptake if the infrastructure were just put in place. It's not about making every person ride a bike on every trip, it's about making more bike trips possible for more people. Obviously someone who lives in Montana five miles from the nearest stoplight isn't going to be using a bike for their primary transportation, but there's a big spectrum in between that and midtown Manhattan.
In all fairness, improved cycle infrastructure is also great out in the "middle of nowhere" far from stoplights -- even if you're not road cycling, it's a great way to get out, see the countryside, and get some exercise. Where my parents live, it's absolutely brutal to try to get outside and get some exercise, because the roads are unfriendly to pedestrians and cyclists. Improving that setup would let my parents do activities without hopping in a car -- even more valuable as they get older and less capable of driving a multi-ton pile of steel at 60MPH everywhere they want to go.
