101–110 of 173 posts
Isn't this just the same as population density? I think there's an XKCD about this ... https://xkcd.com/1138/
No, several of the middle states have fairly large populations ex: Iowa 3+million, but disapear in this map. PS: This is really a map of wealth * population.
Iowa is huge, those 3 million people are pretty spread out
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, several of the middle states have fairly large populations ex: Iowa 3+million, but disapear in this map. PS: This is really a map of wealth * population.
population density . Iowa is huge, those 3 million people are pretty spread out
PS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_County,_California is a huge blob and only has 2,100/sq mi.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How are you liking Bend? I remember reading some of your comments on HN a few years ago since we were living in Portland. In Seattle now and own a place, but are thinking someday we might sell it and move to Bend. We've always found central Oregon uniquely beautiful. My friend just bought a place in Boulder, and I visited and enjoyed hanging out there. Things did seem a bit more expensive.
So far so good - but it's only been a few weeks! Summer in Oregon is wonderful, no two ways about it. What we'll have to see is how the winter is over here. I grew up in Eugene and lived in Portland, and just can't handle that endless gray.
I can't help thinking this trend is at its zenith. Where economic growth is faltering, we're seeing de-urbanization, and I would be long the yellow areas and short the red, because if there is any upset to the JIT way our cities operate (London for example is said to have a mere 4 days worth food in stock), for reasons of climate change or political upheaval or some other reason (no more opportunity in overcrowded cities?), the rural areas on which we still enormously depend for food and water may suddenly revalue upwards.
I don't think I've ever seen a worse Cartogram. At least they did an animation to make it easier to understand, but a regular map with simple choropleth would be a thousand times better.
This is exhibit A on how animation can transform data visualization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Exactly. This is making Dallas County look expensive, when in fact it is one of the most affordable major metro areas in the US. The "elite Texas counties" the article refers to are really a figment of data representation. Sure, those counties have neighborhoods or small towns that are stupid expensive, but they are the exception. All of them are highly populous, though; all five dark red counties (Dallas, Tarrant, H…
> "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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Not strictly, though population density is certainly a factor (and, since its total land value in each county, so is population, which -- as counties are not of uniform size -- is a separate concern from population density. And, probably more directly than either of those, Gross County Product.)
> 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…
From your blog, it looks like you were pricing sizable houses rather than higher density housing like a 2br/2ba condo, which can be found for much less. Although I grew up in Alaska, I have no regrets about buying a modest condo next to trails and with a short bike commute instead of a larger place further from everything I care about. Anyway, there would be more incentive to build high-density housing if more people…
NYC has had a massive residential construction boom (see Williamsburg, downtown Brooklyn, Long Island City, &c). Almost all of the housing that goes up is luxury and seems to do very little to bring down the city's extreme housing costs. Maybe severe inequality is driven by factors other than just NIMBYism? The new condos seem to attract wealthy outsiders.