Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

Small towns benefit, which offer everything locally up to high school, except well-paid corporate jobs. Including a part-time job for the woman in town.

Except the woman works well paid for a corporation :cool::rolleyes:

The "2 to 3 times a week I can commute" distance to the big city was possibly permanently upgraded by Corona. Small towns that offer everything locally up to high school, except well-paid corporate jobs, benefit from this.

Exactly. And it is the eternal change between center and periphery. In the last 20 years, the trend has been towards the center. Motivator number 1 - the job. Especially there, everything is currently changing for knowledge workers. The rest - theater, cinema - is also available in medium-sized towns, and precisely the cinema topic, because it was mentioned - is pretty much dead. Streaming killed the cinema star..

It is simply a mistake to ignore the classic long-running waves and to believe in ever-increasing curves. That does not exist with Corona, not with stocks, and certainly not with real estate or urban development - and not with corporations either.

Except the woman works well paid for a corporation :cool::rolleyes:

Dual earners in a large corporation can and still want to afford the house close to the workplace. However, I am familiar with the situation I described many times. One commutes a borderline long distance, the woman works part-time nearby. And the definition of "borderline long distance" shifts very noticeably thanks to partial work from home.

I also think that the attractiveness of cities and metropolitan areas will continue for a while. While some jobs are shifting to home offices and working in rural areas is becoming more diverse, the infrastructural and cultural advantages of metropolitan areas remain. The accompanying "pulse" especially attracts young people, and fewer leave the city later than those who have moved in. Many simply enjoy staying there. In addition, the dream of owning a home is still quite common, but other forms of living are on the rise. Here, the city offers innovation, while the countryside does not, but instead has a shrinking number of new building plots.

This greed for building plots does not help either. It would be more sensible to use old places, buildings, and squares. However, this does not reconcile with the desire for 60 sqm all-purpose rooms, dressing rooms, children's bathrooms, and garage access. Sometimes one gets the impression that everything that does not look like it is from an American series in the suburb is perceived as slum-like and unlivable. And the municipalities do not shine with creativity in this regard either.

Furthermore, the dream of owning a home is still quite widespread, but other forms of housing are on the rise. Here, the city offers innovation, whereas the countryside does not, but rather a shrinking number of new building plots.

Does this come from the new Green Party bestseller? Otherwise, it’s pretty simplistic and certainly wrong as a whole. Not least because the city often has no space for "innovation" and often no money either. Maybe you could give us some examples from your observed utopia? Hopefully more than TinyHouse (= trailer park for the academic precariat or yuppy kids), building groups (with program block warden), and intergenerational living in blocks.