Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 173 posts

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

#131

Post by meej »

davidw wrote: post #4

> 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…

Bend is lovely. I'm curious, what was it like finding a place to live? Bend is somewhat notorious right now for it's <1% rental vacancy rates, which may be the lowest in the country. There was a news story earlier this year about a local medical center's new hires having a hard time finding a place to live -- I think one person even gave up and left their job because of it.

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

#132

Post by JackFr »

SonicSoul wrote: post #79
jbattle wrote: post #8

Isn't this just the same as population density? I think there's an XKCD about this ... https://xkcd.com/1138/

There are more factors that go into land valuation. A few I can think of: mean salary amount, unemployment rate, past and projected economic growth

Also important - net household formation.

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

#133

Post by monocasa »

saryant wrote: post #49
eastbayjake wrote: post #43

Earlier 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?

Probably farther out since they'd have to reimburse Goldman Sachs for lost profits on 36 if they built the train.

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

#134

Post by humanrebar »

rwhitman wrote: post #117
humanrebar wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> NYC and the Bay Area are pretty different when it comes to NIMBY policies and commutes from low income areas to high income. How so? New York has plenty of NIMBY policies and commuters.

In NYC if you need a $1200 / mo 1BR apartment, sure Manhattan and north eastern Brooklyn aren't options but you still have places like Harlem, Queens, New Jersey, The Bronx, Staten Island all of which are under an hour commute from Manhattan (and with a rapid transit system that respects shift workers by running 24hrs a day). NYC has also been adding high density (albeit market rate) housing stock by the tens of thou…

I don't want to get drawn into a long debate on it, but I think it's clear that NYC has competitive commute times to the Bay Area. Some even think it's worse:

http://fortune.com/2015/05/20/these-american-cities-have-the...

As far as NIMBY goes... I guess I was taking that more broadly. There isn't objections against density qua density, but projects are blocked because they block views. And projects are blocked because of what they'd do to the neighborhood (think highways and housing projects, Forest Hills as a popular counterexample).

There also seems to be some empirical evidence that NYC is actually building housing slower than SF.

http://newyorkyimby.com/2014/08/new-york-citys-is-americas-s...

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

#135

Post by rayiner »

davidw wrote: post #10
larrykubin wrote: post #7

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.

My wife grew up in Eugene! Lovely in Spring and Summer unless you are allergic to all the grass farms.

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

#137

Post by curun1r »

dasil003 wrote: post #78
curun1r wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you follow the one of the links in the story, you'll see that one of the reasons the housing prices in NYC and SF are so high is the unwillingness of current residents to allow more construction to allow greater housing density. So, in this case, it isn't a proxy for population density since the high prices are actually a symptom of below-optimal population density.

That doesn't quite follow since SF and NYC are already the highest population densities in the US. The fact that the residents don't want to allow greater densities doesn't invalidate the correlation.

Yes, it does. Demand is very different from density. The fact that one region happens to have both high density and high demand is coincidence, not correlation. For it to be a correlation, that would have to be the case in most places. Places like Mountain View, Palo Alto or even Beverly Hills and Malibu also have high demand with a much lower population density.

Also, while it's trite to say, correlation doesn't not mean causation. Being a proxy means a causal relationship, not just a correlation. XKCD was arguing against maps that indicate a causal relationship. Each of the graphs in the comic don't just correlate with population density maps, they're the same because they're visualizing a trait that has no difference based on geography. That's in no way the case in this situation.

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

#138

Post by Balgair »

asabjorn wrote: post #120
cheald wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monies spent on rent are already included in the GDP; they don't depress it.

I think he is alluding that high rent leads to wealth concentration. A lot of salaried people can invest a tiny bit in a much larger variety of interests than a few wealthy, or choose to work on something less profitable while still making rent. These investments by a lot of people will at some point lead to unexpected value creations that increase GDP. At least that is the tenet of a consumer and market economy.

Bingo.

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

#140

Post by panic »

xxpor wrote: post #94
trhway wrote: post #13

i kind of understand why people here frequently against high-density - the way it is done in US ends up with pretty unlivable space of towering boxes surrounded by concrete and asphalt (which is just obvious result of profit maximization while obeying height limits, etc.. While i think having a 200 stories tower surrounded by a park would be better than a bunch of 20-30 stories mid-towers sticking out of concrete/asp…

>While i think having a 200 stories tower surrounded by a park would be better than a bunch of 20-30 stories mid-towers sticking out of concrete/asphalt space) Ugh, please no. This is essentially what Le Corbusier advocated and the results are disasterous. It leads to all of the downsides of density. Lots of people taking up space, but none of the benefits (easy access to shopping, entertainment, school, work, etc.),…

Yeah, The Death and Life of Great American Cities is a good read if you want more detail about why this is a terrible idea (http://www.amazon.com/Death-Life-Great-American-Cities/dp/06...).
Post reply on HN