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

41–50 of 173 posts

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

#41

Post by davidw »

mountaineer wrote: post #39
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…

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 there.

> there is no "outside of Bend"

Yeah, that's something we're nervous about, and definitely a point in favor of Boulder. OTOH, Bend does seem to be growing - they're building the new university now, which should help a little bit.

> the jobs that are there don't support the house prices

I got lucky from that point of view, I guess.

Speaking of stopping by, I'd be happy to meet up with people for beer or whatever as soon as we're slightly more settled in.

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

#43

Post by eastbayjake »

ajross wrote: post #6
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…

But if Boulder looked more like Denver (or Bend like Portland), you might not have made that choice, right? I'm guessing that you wanted those spots because they were semi-rural mountain cities with low population density. So even if you did move to Boulder, you'd probably oppose the construction of more high-density housing, right?

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, mixed-use residential that wouldn't obstruct mountain views for the most powerful (i.e. richest) homeowners in Boulder. It would look ugly if you did something like the Denver Tech Center where 15-25 story buildings are placed on a ridge on the plains with no trees, but you could conceal quite a bit with the right placement of native trees around smaller 4-5 story buildings.

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

#44

Post by jsonne »

ajross wrote: post #6
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…

But if Boulder looked more like Denver (or Bend like Portland), you might not have made that choice, right? I'm guessing that you wanted those spots because they were semi-rural mountain cities with low population density. So even if you did move to Boulder, you'd probably oppose the construction of more high-density housing, right?

Denver isn't exactly great at the moment either. However, we've taken a more proactive approach by building more housing instead of trying to keep people out.

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

#46

Post by MarkPNeyer »

vvladymyrov wrote: post #36
amenghra wrote: post #12

I wonder how things will change once self driving cars become the norm.

and something like hyper loop will be built

if you can live in Fresno and work in SF with a half hour commute, expect huge changes here.

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

#47

Post by pchristensen »

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?

Housing is an input to productive, primary industries, and local politics conspire to keep the housing supply low and price high. This makes operating the productive industries more expensive. Similar to energy prices on manufacturing industries - high input cost -> lower productivity.

Best read about this: http://smile.amazon.com/The-Rent-Too-Damn-High-ebook/dp/B007...

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

#48

Post by thaumasiotes »

jessaustin wrote: post #30
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, talking US maps. Not many per-person maps that would work worldwide. What do you suggest for an example?

Dark brown hair?

Unless you're counting hair dye, this will still leave out nearly 100% of China and India. You want brown eyes, or black hair.

Grain consumption levels should track population pretty well across the world.

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

#49

Post by saryant »

eastbayjake wrote: post #43
ajross wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if Boulder looked more like Denver (or Bend like Portland), you might not have made that choice, right? I'm guessing that you wanted those spots because they were semi-rural mountain cities with low population density. So even if you did move to Boulder, you'd probably oppose the construction of more high-density housing, right?

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?

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

#50

Post by AndrewKemendo »

boomshucka wrote: post #33
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's saying that concentration of wealth geographically is harmful to economic development. The reality is though, that distributed wealth grows much more slowly.

That's not even close to what it's saying. It's saying people in places like SF don't want others coming in/and or want to maximize their home value, so they stop new housing being built, which keeps supply of housing down and thus less people can live in areas where there are lots of work opportunities.

You're thinking too narrowly. Your point is correct, but the broader point is that there should be those same work opportunities spread out around the country so that you don't have to move to SF or wherever to get a good job. That is what hurts the economy on a broader scale.

Employment is "sticky" in that personal mobility can't move as fast as capital mobility and that seems to have led to concentrations of wealth.

Post reply on HN