U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Will Houston surpass Chicago as the 3rd largest city by 2020?
Yes 473 41.35%
No 671 58.65%
Voters: 1144. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-22-2009, 11:35 PM
 
Location: At the center of the universe!
1,176 posts, read 1,693,964 times
Reputation: 359

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoarfrost View Post
What you and a lot of people fail to understand is that when you purchase/rent a house/apartment/condo, you aren't paying purely for the cost of producing the home or the quality of it, you are also working against simple supply and demand, in other words paying for the exclusivity of living in an area with fewer vacancies and a large demand, and large demand is caused by things such as superior amenities, transportation, connections, and opportunity.
No I understand what you're saying. What I'm saying is these high cost of living areas are way overpriced and people are getting ripped off living there. Houston has a lot more people than Boston does. So what that means is Houston is more appealing to people which is why more people move to Houston. So if it was simple supply and demand houses in Houston would be 3 times what they are in Boston but instead they're 3 times as high in Boston as they are in Houston. So Houston is being demanded much more than Boston but the housing prices in Boston are a lot higher. It sounds like Arthur Andersen accounting to me. This makes no sense whatsoever. Boston is higher priced but Houston is more appealing to people. That would be like paying more for a Honda Civic than a Mercedes. I guess some people are easily fooled.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-22-2009, 11:38 PM
 
Location: At the center of the universe!
1,176 posts, read 1,693,964 times
Reputation: 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
Cool. So I guess I'd have plenty of room to store the millions of dollars you'd have to pay me to live in Houston.
You would have to pay me billions to live in Chicago. Where's my bailout? Someone give me a 800 billion dollar bailout to live in Chicago. Any takers?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2009, 01:52 AM
 
1,303 posts, read 1,662,592 times
Reputation: 191
who dug this old thread up
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2009, 08:15 AM
 
Location: Houston, TX
1,305 posts, read 3,016,513 times
Reputation: 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post
Chicago has "blah" architecture?! Seriously?! Chicago has arguably the greatest high-rise architecture in the world along with NYC and Hong Kong.

If Chicago has "blah" architecture, who has great architecture? Are your standards that far through the roof?
What?! Almost 900 posts deep and we're still surprised people are making completely unfounded and visibly biased claims? Chicago's got great architecture. So does Houston.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post
I don't believe he was saying Chicago has better weather, I think he was just pointing out Houston's weather isn't exactly perfect.
Not Perfect?! Who doesn't like 3 months of 100 degree weather with 100% humidity? That's horridly outlandish!

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZLiam View Post
After 841 posts and 85 pages, I cannot believe this thread is still going.
Believe it. At some point, someone will write something truly profound that no one has yet written that will ultimately answer the question of Chicago's and Houston's population growth. It may take another 850 posts, but I have faith that it'll happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
Cool. So I guess I'd have plenty of room to store the millions of dollars you'd have to pay me to live in Houston.
Well then... That wasn't necessary, now was it? But, if you were wanting to store your money, I'd highly recommend you don't store it in your extra bedroom, I don't care how much extra space you have. It's just not safe there. Keep it in a bank. At least if it's stolen from a bank, it'll be FDIC insured. If it's stolen from your extra bedroom, you're just out of luck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by atlantaATL View Post
who dug this old thread up
I'm guessing grave robbers. They were probably looking for some of Drover's loosely guarded millions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2009, 08:17 AM
 
1,967 posts, read 1,529,000 times
Reputation: 844
this thread needs to be locked.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2009, 10:19 AM
 
Location: Denver
6,628 posts, read 12,143,486 times
Reputation: 4051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodo2008 View Post
No I understand what you're saying. What I'm saying is these high cost of living areas are way overpriced and people are getting ripped off living there. Houston has a lot more people than Boston does. So what that means is Houston is more appealing to people which is why more people move to Houston. So if it was simple supply and demand houses in Houston would be 3 times what they are in Boston but instead they're 3 times as high in Boston as they are in Houston. So Houston is being demanded much more than Boston but the housing prices in Boston are a lot higher. It sounds like Arthur Andersen accounting to me. This makes no sense whatsoever. Boston is higher priced but Houston is more appealing to people. That would be like paying more for a Honda Civic than a Mercedes. I guess some people are easily fooled.
Yikes, I don't know where to start with this. First off, Houston doesn't have more people than Boston. Boston CSA: 7,514,000 in 7,497 sq. mi; Houston CSA: 5,728,143 in 10,062 sq mi. Yes, Houston's city proper is larger, 2,208,180 vs 608,352...however, look at the land area: Houston: 579 sq mi vs Boston: 48.4 sq mi. Which brings me to why cities like Boston being more expensive than Houston is absolutely nothing like "paying more for a Honda Civic than a Mercedes".

Scarce resources are very valuable. Oil, diamonds, and fresh water are all valuable because they're scarce. When there are old, established cities like Boston and San Francisco, which are both located in small areas surrounded by water, there's no room to expand. Since there's nowhere to go but up (and in Boston that's very tough because the airport is located directly across the harbor, which limits the height of downtown...not to mention NIMBY groups in the city which do whatever they can to hinder the development of new skyscrapers.), land value rises, which ultimately creates a more expensive city. Since Boston was developed before the auto, it became extremely dense in both the city proper and the surrounding cities. Since there's great demand to live in these areas, and there's not much land to live on, the value is very high.

Since Houston is a relatively new city as far as development goes, they're able to cover enormous swaths of land. Due to development based around the car, leading to large highways and therefore an easier commute to areas further away, Houstonians are able to travel to more spread out areas with more ease than cities like Boston.

Therefore since land in Houston isn't considered to be "scarce" like it is in Boston, it isn't considered as valuable. Which is why your "Civic vs Mercedes" claim is completely wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2009, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Hell's Kitchen, NYC
2,271 posts, read 4,419,722 times
Reputation: 1584
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post
Yikes, I don't know where to start with this. First off, Houston doesn't have more people than Boston. Boston CSA: 7,514,000 in 7,497 sq. mi; Houston CSA: 5,728,143 in 10,062 sq mi. Yes, Houston's city proper is larger, 2,208,180 vs 608,352...however, look at the land area: Houston: 579 sq mi vs Boston: 48.4 sq mi. Which brings me to why cities like Boston being more expensive than Houston is absolutely nothing like "paying more for a Honda Civic than a Mercedes".

Scarce resources are very valuable. Oil, diamonds, and fresh water are all valuable because they're scarce. When there are old, established cities like Boston and San Francisco, which are both located in small areas surrounded by water, there's no room to expand. Since there's nowhere to go but up (and in Boston that's very tough because the airport is located directly across the harbor, which limits the height of downtown...not to mention NIMBY groups in the city which do whatever they can to hinder the development of new skyscrapers.), land value rises, which ultimately creates a more expensive city. Since Boston was developed before the auto, it became extremely dense in both the city proper and the surrounding cities. Since there's great demand to live in these areas, and there's not much land to live on, the value is very high.

Since Houston is a relatively new city as far as development goes, they're able to cover enormous swaths of land. Due to development based around the car, leading to large highways and therefore an easier commute to areas further away, Houstonians are able to travel to more spread out areas with more ease than cities like Boston.

Therefore since land in Houston isn't considered to be "scarce" like it is in Boston, it isn't considered as valuable. Which is why your "Civic vs Mercedes" claim is completely wrong.
Um, Houston has more people metrowise and city properwise. What are you talking about? People need to stop bringing up completely unrelated topics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2009, 11:00 AM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
18,258 posts, read 25,986,979 times
Reputation: 9022
Quote:
Originally Posted by theSUBlime View Post
Um, Houston has more people metrowise and city properwise. What are you talking about? People need to stop bringing up completely unrelated topics.
Actually, he is talking about CSA and the Boston CSA is larger than Houston. Now MSA wise, Houston is bigger but again it covers more land than Boston does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2009, 11:38 AM
 
Location: Denver
6,628 posts, read 12,143,486 times
Reputation: 4051
Quote:
Originally Posted by theSUBlime View Post
Um, Houston has more people metrowise and city properwise. What are you talking about? People need to stop bringing up completely unrelated topics.
How is that unrelated? I quoted a post which was making an argument based off things that were completely false. If you want to compare MSAs, fine.

Houston MSA: 5,728,143 in 8,929 sq. miles (The state of Massachusetts is 7,840 sq. miles)
Boston MSA: 4,522,858 in 4,511 sq. miles.

So yea, Houston technically has a more populous metro. However, look at our CSA vs the MSA of Houston...Boston has nearly 2 million more people in an area 1,500 sq. miles smaller.

Houston MSA: 5,728,143 in 8,929 sq. miles
Boston CSA: 7,514,000 in 7,497 sq. miles

That wasn't even really the main point of my initial post though. I was trying to explain why land values in cities like Boston are higher than in cities like Houston. Sorry for semi-hijacking this thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2009, 12:11 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 23,828,094 times
Reputation: 5617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodo2008 View Post
No I understand what you're saying. What I'm saying is these high cost of living areas are way overpriced and people are getting ripped off living there. Houston has a lot more people than Boston does. So what that means is Houston is more appealing to people which is why more people move to Houston. So if it was simple supply and demand houses in Houston would be 3 times what they are in Boston but instead they're 3 times as high in Boston as they are in Houston. So Houston is being demanded much more than Boston but the housing prices in Boston are a lot higher. It sounds like Arthur Andersen accounting to me. This makes no sense whatsoever. Boston is higher priced but Houston is more appealing to people. That would be like paying more for a Honda Civic than a Mercedes. I guess some people are easily fooled.
Sorry I disagree... I think they are priced accordingly minus the housing bubble recently... there is a quality of life built in... certainly if you wanna not ever go out or participate in society except going to work and coming back home to watch cable tv, then those places aren't for you...Most people in big cities like NYC and Paris and Tokyo and Seoul etc... don't care that their place is tiny, it really isn't a big deal because most of the new yorkers or parisians are OUT all the time and generally mostly home just to sleep.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top