2. 考研
  3. Buy land, advised Mark Twain; they’re not making it any more. In fact, land is not really scarce: the entire population of Ameri

Buy land, advised Mark Twain; they’re not making it any more. In fact, land is not really scarce: the entire population of Ameri

admin2022-07-06  29
问题     Buy land, advised Mark Twain; they’re not making it any more. In fact, land is not really scarce: the entire population of America could fit into Texas with more than an acre for each household to enjoy. What drives prices sky-high is a collision between unrestrained demand and limited supply in the great metropolises like London, Mumbai and New York.
    Even in these great cities the scarcity is artificial. Regulatory limits on the height and density of buildings constrain supply and magnify prices. A recent analysis by academics at the London School of Economics estimates that land-use regulations in the West End of London raise the price of office space by about 800%. Most of the enormous value captured by landowners exists because it is almost impossible to build new offices to compete those profits away.
    The costs of this unwise property market are huge, mainly because of their effects on individuals. High housing prices force workers towards cheaper but less productive places. According to one study, employment in the Bay Area around San Francisco would be about five times larger than it is but for tight limits on construction. Add up these costs in lost earnings and unrealised human potential, and the figures become dizzying. Lifting all the barriers to urban growth in America could raise the country’s GDP by between 6.5% and 13.5%, or by about $1 trillion-2 trillion. It is difficult to think of many other policies that would yield anything like that.
    This fractured market is a good thing, actually, say many. The roads and rails criss-crossing big cities barely function under the pressure of growing populations. Lowering property prices hurts one of the few routes to wealth-accumulation still available to the middle classes. A cautious approach to development is the surest way to preserve public spaces and a city’s heritage: give economists their way, and they would quickly pave over Central Park.
    However well these arguments go down in local planning meetings, they perish on closer scrutiny. Home ownership is not especially egalitarian. Many households are priced out of more vibrant places. It is not accidental that the home-ownership rate in the metropolitan area of falling Detroit, at 71%, is well above the 55% in booming San Francisco. You do not need to build a forest of skyscrapers for a lot more people to make their home in big cities. San Francisco could squeeze in twice as many and remain half as dense as Manhattan.
Which of the following is suggested in the last paragraph?
选项 A、The home-ownership rate of a city depends on economic situation.
B、Many urban households are forced to leave due to egalitarian principle.
C、Big cities like San Francisco can accommodate all those who want to come.
D、Increase in the height and density of buildings attracts more people to move in.
答案A
解析 最后一段第三句提到，经济下滑的底特律住房拥有率比经济繁荣的旧金山要高得多，这并非偶然的，暗示经济的发展状况会对住房拥有率产生影响。由上下文可知，这是由于经济发展良好的话，人口较多，造成需求增多，从而推高房价，使得人们无法在市区购房，从而降低住房拥有率。A项正确。B项错在egalitarian principle，许多家庭搬离市区，并非出于“公平的原则”，而是负担不起高昂的房价。C项“像旧金山这类大城市可以容纳任何想来的人”是对最后一句的过度推断，说法过于绝对。倒数第二句提到，并不是说建造更多的高楼就可以让更多人在市内安家，暗示关键还是在于房价的高低，D项“增加建筑物的高度和密度能吸引更多人到来”与此相反。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/G6g7FFFM
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)