It's kind of delightful watching NYC and SF in the gif inflate like gigantic pustules, cysts of real estate.
I'm the most surprised how LA blows up, I thought it was quite a bit cheaper there than in SF/NY.
Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area
51–60 of 173 posts
Re: Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area
#52> The demand to live in these places is soaring, but the desire among incumbents to accommodate newcomers is low Sums up why we ended up in Bend, Oregon rather than Boulder, Colorado. In the latter, there is a small but significant group of people whose idea is that the area needs fewer jobs, not smarter housing. Edit: http://journal.dedasys.com/2015/06/18/boulder-colorado-vs-be... - more about our choice, for the cu…
As a lifetime Oregonian, I enjoy Bend and get out there a couple times a year. My family even considered moving there a few years ago in search of a place with more sun. But in deciding between Boulder and Bend, we ended up choosing Boulder, well actually Broomfield, but Boulder was the draw, because as you found Boulder housing prices were too high. Which leads me to the question, did you consider living outside of…
Broomfield and Boulder are night and day
Re: Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are smart ways to do high-density housing while preserving the character of cities like Boulder. The rail line from Denver to Boulder is going to help a lot of people justify not having cars in Boulder, and traffic congestion is probably the most harmful effect of squeezing lots of people into a small space. There are lots of places east of downtown/CU that you could build clusters of high-density, 4-5 story, m…
Isn't the rail line from Denver to Boulder supposed to be completed in something like 2044? IOW, never?
yeah with government involvement never is a safer bet
Re: Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area
#54How can the random large splotches be translated into usefulness or meaning? The gif seems to imply that the areas are resized based on their value, that is SUPER not helpful. And the bucket $40b - $1tr?! Almost everything falls in that bucket! I don't think this map is of great value.
Re: Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a lifetime Oregonian, I enjoy Bend and get out there a couple times a year. My family even considered moving there a few years ago in search of a place with more sun. But in deciding between Boulder and Bend, we ended up choosing Boulder, well actually Broomfield, but Boulder was the draw, because as you found Boulder housing prices were too high. Which leads me to the question, did you consider living outside of…
> did you consider living outside of Boulder to still get most of the things on your checklist, but not face the high housing prices or difficult political climate? Yeah, but at that point, you're back to the whole car commute thing, or a really long bike ride. And you're significantly farther from the mountains by bike, too. Fort Collins was something else that looked pretty interesting, but I didn't see many jobs t…
> Yeah, but at that point, you're back to the whole car commute thing, or a really long bike ride. And you're significantly farther from the mountains by bike, too.
Ahh, right, car-free commute is a good point.
> Fort Collins was something else that looked pretty interesting, but I didn't see many jobs there.
My reaction to Fort Collins was similar, really liked it too, but seemed more like Bend as far as lack of jobs/backup-plans go. I like smaller cities and I work remotely, so backup plans shouldn't matter as much as it does to me. I'm probably too risk-averse in that sense, as I also had the same fears when looking at a move to Corvallis before. I suppose I'll always need to be near a bigger city to compensate.
I'll be on the lookout for meetups as well.
Re: Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area
#56Isn't this just the same as population density? I think there's an XKCD about this ... https://xkcd.com/1138/
Not quite fair. Usually the xkcd syndrome is caused by plotting density of something that is intrinsic to people e.g. red hair. You end up with a heatmap of population. Here, land prices may be higher because more people are there bidding up the prices. But its not a direct property of the individuals. So the heatmap effect is indirect. Maybe not big point, but there it is.
This map is measuring the land value within a county. Land values are dependent on population density. It's not surprising that Manhattan has such a high value when you consider how many folks are crammed into the island.
If you create a map that was land value divided by population density it would be much more interesting.
Re: Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area
#57> "The stubborn unwillingness of incumbent homeowners in highly productive places—namely San Francisco and New York City, which are barely visible on the land-area map, but dominate the housing value map—is a huge drain on the nation’s economy." Are they trying to say that if people didn't have to spend as much on housing then there would be greater GDP?
I think that if rents weren't such a drain, then yes, you could spend the money on other things and drive up GDP. SF currently has bad rents that are hurting the local economy. Money that just a few years ago was going to eating out, new cars, vacations, etc. is now going to a greedy landlord.
Monies spent on rent are already included in the GDP; they don't depress it.
Re: Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area
#58It's kind of delightful watching NYC and SF in the gif inflate like gigantic pustules, cysts of real estate.
I'm the most surprised how LA blows up, I thought it was quite a bit cheaper there than in SF/NY.
LA county has almost 10M people living in it. SF has only 800K. If housing prices were equal, you'd expect LA to be 10 times the size (assuming an equal number of people per dwelling).
Re: Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area
#59From the standpoint of at least one "user", I would have gotten a lot more value out of the animation if I could control it (e.g. with a slider). The pulsing back and forth makes it more difficult for me to pinpoint something of interest (e.g. a less expensive city like Detroit) and then track it.
Re: Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a lifetime Oregonian, I enjoy Bend and get out there a couple times a year. My family even considered moving there a few years ago in search of a place with more sun. But in deciding between Boulder and Bend, we ended up choosing Boulder, well actually Broomfield, but Boulder was the draw, because as you found Boulder housing prices were too high. Which leads me to the question, did you consider living outside of…
Broomfield and Boulder are night and day
Curious to know in what ways you think so? Not that I disagree. I was at the intersection of Broomfield/Erie/Lafayette and we spend much more of our non-being home time in and around Boulder, Lafayette and Louisville than Broomfield. So, while Broomfield was our residence, Boulder was still the draw.