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

81–90 of 173 posts

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

#81

Post by boomshucka »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #50
boomshucka wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, I'm simply not making the mistake of taking my own conclusions and assuming the author is making THAT point. Whether you are right or not, it's not the authors point with that line. NIMBY was the point.

As for whether you are right, you might think this personal mobility v capital mobility is a clever sounding point. It's dumb. The idea that one simple idea has led to concentrations of wealth is absurd. It's useful in life to actually think things through, rather than parrot phrases you've heard in econ 101. You are literally clueless.

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

#86

Post by maxerickson »

lordnacho wrote: post #73

How does the transformation work? It must be something that keeps the same borders regardless of what numbers you put in.

It's up to the producer what properties of the original map are preserved. Wikipedia seems reasonable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartogram

(Note especially the table of algorithms)

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

#87

Post by vonmoltke »

refurb wrote: post #56
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #17

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.

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, Harris, Travis, Bexar) are in the top-20 most populous counties in the US.

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

#88

Post by jedbrown »

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…

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 wanted to buy it instead of writing off the housing market as insane and going elsewhere (be it the eastern suburbs or somewhere completely different as you did).

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

#89

Post by lambdasquirrel »

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/

No, unless I'm mistaken, it's literally the sum value of all the bare land, not including the value of the buildings. California seems to have a third of value in the United States, and the Northeast Corridor has another third, but neither have a third of the population.

(edit: I stand corrected, but it's still notable that property value and density aren't necessarily correlated.)

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

#90

Post by humanrebar »

rwhitman wrote: post #45

The conclusions from the article seemed a bit rushed. NYC and the Bay Area are pretty different when it comes to NIMBY policies and commutes from low income areas to high income.

> 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.

Post reply on HN