Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area • Hacker News Board

Re: Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area

#121

Post by sliverstorm » Wed, Jul 08, 2015, 9:27 PM UTC

lubesGordi wrote: post #16

> "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?

Maybe that's what they are saying. I could understand this wrong but high real estate prices locks up a lot of wealth in property where it isn't really doing any good. If all that wealth was able to circulate in the economy, it might increase growth.

You might argue that when I buy a house for $500k, the seller gets $500k, so where's the problem? But the seller needs somewhere to live too- they are probably putting that $500k into another house, commonly an even more expensive house.

Re: Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area

#122

Post by sliverstorm » Wed, Jul 08, 2015, 9:29 PM UTC

yongjik wrote: post #116

lubesGordi wrote: post #16

> "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?

The author might be making a valid point, but the visualization they chose doesn't match their thesis very well. Think about it: if the homeowners in SF relent, approve massive housing projects, and decrease the average housing price of SF, then more people will now move into SF and its total real estate price (and hence the size of SF in their visualiztion) will increase .

Not necessarily. SF has a housing shortage. Remembering our basic supply & demand curves, price starts to go up exponentially when demand greatly outstrips supply.

Suppose you met the demand by doubling the supply. Suppose that takes you out of the exponential region, and housing costs drop fourfold. Overall, the market shrinks by half.

Re: Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area

#123

Post by vonmoltke » Wed, Jul 08, 2015, 9:33 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #106

vonmoltke wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That doesn't jibe with the map data - land prices in that county are anything but affordable, regardless of how many people live there, right?

The data is purporting to show total property value, not land value. Thus, a residential tower with 400 units at $100,000 each and occupying five acres adds $40 million to the valuation. In contrast, a five-acre spread with a single mansion might only be worth $5 million. Thus, a county with more residential towers will have a higher aggregate value than a county with more luxury mansions, even though the former is much more affordable.

Re: Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area

#124

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Jul 08, 2015, 9:37 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #111

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't jibe with the map data - land prices in that county are anything but affordable, regardless of how many people live there, right?

The map shows total land price in the county. It doesn't measure anything like affordability of land (which would be measured by something like price / unit area of land) or residential affordability (which would be measured by something like price / unit area of home.)

Got it, thanks!

Re: Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area

#125

Post by davidw » Wed, Jul 08, 2015, 9:37 PM UTC

jedbrown wrote: post #119

davidw wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prices are lower all across the board in Bend. We were looking into some townhouses in Boulder, and they're still several hundred dollars more than what we pay in a nice part of Bend within walking distance of downtown.

Obviously, but no amount of high-density construction in Boulder will make it cheaper than equivalent accommodations in Bend (unless Bend gets a lot more expensive). I'm not questioning your decision, but it's worth being realistic about what high-density construction could achieve.

Sure, it's not going to magically drop prices, but it might help blunt their advance for a while.

Re: Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area

#126

Post by bagacrap » Wed, Jul 08, 2015, 9:45 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #58

tsiki wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Yes, it's difficult to make a fair comparison across counties of such vastly different areas and populations. LA county includes far-off places like Palmdale which bring the average housing price way down. If you only looked at more central neighborhoods like Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, etc. you'd see distortion more akin to SF.

Re: Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area

#127

Post by hglman » Wed, Jul 08, 2015, 9:49 PM UTC

TranquilMarmot wrote: post #69

mountaineer wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I used to live in Lafayette and definitely agree- the only reason we lived in Lafayette vs. Boulder was the housing was much more affordable. The town is pretty quiet but we would always drive up to Boulder if we wanted to hang out or do something fun. Denver wasn't too far away either, so we would go there for concerts or conventions or whatever. I moved out to Oregon and live in the Salem area for a similar reason-…

That's still a lot of time in a car driving around.

Re: Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area

#128

Post by briandear » Wed, Jul 08, 2015, 10:03 PM UTC

iskander wrote: post #110

>Folks who can’t afford to live in those places don’t get to take advantage of those labor markets. The demand to live in these places is soaring, but the desire among incumbents to accommodate newcomers is low. Hence NIMBYism, high housing costs, severe inequality—the whole shebang. NYC has had a massive residential construction boom (see Williamsburg, downtown Brooklyn, Long Island City, &c). Almost all of the hous…

Also NYC real estate is a very safe place to park cash. So many properties simply sit empty.

Re: Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area

#129

Post by kpennell » Wed, Jul 08, 2015, 10:07 PM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #115

kpennell wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note: Boulder is great if you already make good money, like a small quiet life, have your partner, and value access to nature over access to people, music, culture, art, etc.

Maybe not the greatest music scene ever, but you are within spitting distance of Denver and Red Rocks.

It's true. At some points, I've been taking the bus down to Denver 2-3 weekend nights per month. Going to move there in August.

Re: Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area

#130

Post by boomshucka » Wed, Jul 08, 2015, 10:10 PM UTC

vegabook wrote: post #104

Talk about big city distortion. 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 mo…

Look outside the US. The US is not anywhere near as distorted as several asian countries and even mexico has a more extreme situation. Asia suggests it's not even close to it's zenith