| Re: Urban vs Rural low cost living | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Matthew Whiting (mewhiting gmail.com)
|
|
| Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 11:09:29 -0700 (PDT) | |
At 7:44 AM -0400 5/19/08, Sharon Villines wrote: >So cities can be better areas for low cost housing than out in the >country or the suburbs. Because people can walk to work, it also makes >them very convenient. Also, if you live a country life, meaning agricultural work, then living in the country does mean walking to work, although you may have to drive your "production" into town. Living the city life in the country seems rather expensive to me. -Matt Whiting Utah Valley Commons - forming
- Re: How much living space to you need?, (continued)
- Re: How much living space to you need? Matthew Whiting, May 20 2008
- Re: Pattern Language Ed and/or Kathryn Belzer, May 20 2008
- Re: Pattern Language James Kacki, May 20 2008
- Urban vs Rural low cost living Marganne, May 19 2008
- Message not available
- Re: Urban vs Rural low cost living Matthew Whiting, May 19 2008
- Re: Urban vs Rural low cost living Marganne, May 19 2008
- Message not available
- Re: Urban vs Rural low cost living Matthew Whiting, May 19 2008
- Re: Low cost housing Marganne, May 18 2008
- Transition Town Movement Marganne, May 19 2008
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.