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)
 
Old 07-29-2017, 11:10 AM
 
164 posts, read 551,533 times
Reputation: 209

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock View Post
How is the The Atlantic Ocean not a major geographic constraint for NYC?

To Philadelphias ESE you have about 6000 sq miles of livable land. 6000 extra sq miles of room to build houses and apartments compared to NYC,Bos,SF,LA .

ESE of Manhattan ? Nothing but ocean friend.

The Insolence!!!! The Atlantic Ocean is not a constraint to growth because the great NOLA wills it to be so!!!

I have not yet understood exactly why (it's either because water and hilly terrain do not constrain housing supply or supply has no role in determing housing prices); HOWEVER!!!!, geography plays no role in real estate prices!

Someday intrepid warrior you will learn. For your sake, I do pray that time is soon for wrath if the NOLA is swift and it's abulity to perform mental gymnastics beyond any power you can comprehend. Tread warily fellow traveler.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-29-2017, 11:19 AM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,211,668 times
Reputation: 9842
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebitdadada View Post
The Insolence!!!! The Atlantic Ocean is not a constraint to growth because the great NOLA wills it to be so!!!
So explain to us how Lake Michigan isn't a bigger constraint to growth for Chicago.

The Atlantic is nowhere near NYC's core, while Lake Michigan is right in the middle of Chicago. Using your logic Chicago should be far more space-constrained. Zero land available east of downtown, compared to NYC, where Long Island has 1,400 square miles available east of downtown (and this ignores the fact that almost all of CT and a decent chunk of Jersey is east of Manhattan).

An area doesn't need to be devoid of all water in order to sprawl forever, obviously. The sprawl can go in other directions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebitdadada View Post
I have not yet understood exactly why (it's either because water and hilly terrain do not constrain housing supply or supply has no role in determing housing prices); HOWEVER!!!!, geography plays no role in real estate prices!
No one said it plays absolutely no role. Almost everything plays some role. But it's comparatively meaningless. It isn't a determining factor. If Silicon Valley were in Philly or Chicago they would probably be about as expensive as Bay Area. There are no major geographic constraints around San Jose, where prices are insane.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2017, 11:57 AM
 
Location: The canyon (with my pistols and knife)
13,215 posts, read 17,898,257 times
Reputation: 14638
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
There are no major geographic constraints around San Jose, where prices are insane.
False. There are mountain ranges to the east and west of San Jose, and the San Francisco Bay to the north. No, there's not as much geographic constraint in San Jose as there is in San Francisco, but there's still more than most cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2017, 12:19 PM
 
Location: (six-cent-dix-sept)
4,482 posts, read 2,289,672 times
Reputation: 2758
this post got me thinking:
Where do the "liberal urban elite" congregate?

maybe it has to do with n.y.c. has a monopoly on wall street; boston: education; san fransisco: silicon valley.

philly, chicago isnt the leader in any industry where high earners are willing to pay high prices for bad real estate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2017, 12:38 PM
 
Location: (six-cent-dix-sept)
4,482 posts, read 2,289,672 times
Reputation: 2758
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpinionatedOne View Post
Silly thing to say considering that Chicago and Philadelphia are bigger and more populous than San Francisco or Boston. If they aren't desirable, why do so many live there?
...
boston and san fran are denser.
more people live in nebraska so nebraska is more desirable ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2017, 01:05 PM
 
Location: Villanova Pa.
4,908 posts, read 12,501,786 times
Reputation: 2627
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
Because most of NYC's sprawl is nowhere near the Atlantic.
What does this even mean^? Staten Island is right on the lower bay and Atlantic Ocean. Manhattan is 5-10 miles from the lower bay and Atlantic Ocean.

The point is there is no place southeast of NYC to sprawl.

If you had 60 miles by 100 miles of cheap livable land to the east -south- east of Staten Island and Manhattan then sprawl certainly would have put a dent in NYC High Real estate.


Similarly if the Atlantic Ocean swallowed South Jersey and Philadlephia is now oceanfront. Philadlephias real estate market would skyrocket.

Im surprised you are fighting this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
Is Chicago "constrained" by Lake Michigan?
Chicago is absolutely constrained by Lake Michigan.

If Lake Michigan were instead flat farmland :
1. Chicago doesnt become Chicago.
2. Its real estate market would be even much more modest than it currently is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
Is Houston "constrained" by the Gulf of Mexico? Ridiculous.

No Houston is not . Houston you put in the same boat as Philadlephia. Millions of people have built homes Southeast of Houston and Philadlephia. Takes the pressure off the rest of the regions real estate market.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
Almost all major metros have some water. It doesn't mean they can't sprawl forever in most directions. NYC could easily sprawl to Canada and the Midwest, in theory.
Roughly 1/2 of NYC's,SF.LA's,Bostons potential real estate market is physically under water. You have to be able to see the ramifications that fact will have on the cost of living.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nola101
I have no idea what an ESE is, or "livable land" (almost all land is livable)
East-Southeast.

Theres an enormous difference between building in flat South Jersey and the rougher terrain of NJ Highlands,Hudson Valley and SF Bay Area.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
The ocean isn't much further in Philly. Hell, Montauk is much further from Manhattan
The Ocean is 60 miles from Philadelphia. NYC its 0 miles. Manhattan about 10 miles.


Geography + Location is arguably the #1 ingredient for High Cost of Living. Highly Successful companies and successful people will seek out the best real estate for their employees and families.

As far as cities sprawling on forever? I dont agree with that. There is a certain distance where commuting kills sprawl to that core city. Certainly no morethan 40-50 miles.

Last edited by rainrock; 07-29-2017 at 01:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2017, 01:12 PM
 
Location: (six-cent-dix-sept)
4,482 posts, read 2,289,672 times
Reputation: 2758
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Rent asked (no. of units by city/borough). $3,000 or more.

Manhattan - 7,525 (23.2%)
Los Angeles - 1,723 (4.2%)
San Francisco - 987 (8.5%)
Chicago - 697 (1.4%)
Washington, DC - 638 (5.5%)
Brooklyn - 602 (1.9%)
Boston - 492 (5.1%)
Seattle - 379 (6.2%)
San Jose - 375 (9.1%)
Philadelphia - 374 (1.5%)
Denver - 222 (2.7%)
Oakland - 195 (4.0%)
Minneapolis - 160 (3.4%)
Charlotte - 131 (1.2%)
Miami Beach - 61 (3.2%)
Baltimore - 56 (0.4%)
Atlanta - 20 (0.1%)
brooklyn > boston is surprising to me. how many units were in the back bay ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2017, 01:20 PM
 
9,352 posts, read 9,488,849 times
Reputation: 5748
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock View Post
What does this even mean^? Staten Island is right on the lower bay and Atlantic Ocean. Manhattan is 5-10 miles from the lower bay and Atlantic Ocean.

The point is there is no place southeast of NYC to sprawl.

If you had 60 miles by 100 miles of cheap livable land to the east -south- east of Staten Island and Manhattan then sprawl certainly would have put a dent in NYC High Real estate.


Similarly if the Atlantic Ocean swallowed South Jersey and Philadlephia is now oceanfront. Philadlephias real estate market would skyrocket.

Im surprised you are fighting this.




Chicago is absolutely constrained by Lake Michigan.

If Lake Michigan were instead flat farmland :
1. Chicago doesnt become Chicago.
2. Its real estate market would be even much more modest than it currently is.




No Houston is not . Houston you put in the same boat as Philadlephia. Millions of people have built homes Southeast of Houston and Philadlephia. Takes the pressure off the rest of the regions real estate market.




Roughly 1/2 of NYC's,SF.LA's,Bostons potential real estate market is physically under water. You have to be able to see the ramifications that fact will have on the cost of living.




East-Southeast.

Theres an enormous difference between building in flat South Jersey and the rougher terrain of NJ Highlands,Hudson Valley and SF Bay Area.




The Ocean is 60 miles from Philadelphia. NYC its 0 miles. Manhattan about 10 miles.


Geography + Location is arguably the #1 ingredient for High Cost of Living. Successful companies and successful people will seek out the best real estate for their employees and families.

As far as cities sprawling on forever? I dont agree with that. There is a certain distance where commuting kills sprawl to that core city. Certainly no morethan 40-50 miles.
I think its more because its impossible to get anywhere in NYC so living close is much more important. Chicago has a continuous street grid for miles in 3 directions, There are 8 lanes and 2 tracks across the Hudson. The only direction where there is alternate routes into Manhattan is North, and even then its only semi continuous. So its important to live close to NYC or directly on a Transit line or you are basically screwed. Useable real estate is much less in NYC than Chicago
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2017, 02:20 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
8,702 posts, read 11,886,534 times
Reputation: 3571
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
So explain to us how Lake Michigan isn't a bigger constraint to growth for Chicago.

The Atlantic is nowhere near NYC's core, while Lake Michigan is right in the middle of Chicago. Using your logic Chicago should be far more space-constrained. Zero land available east of downtown, compared to NYC, where Long Island has 1,400 square miles available east of downtown (and this ignores the fact that almost all of CT and a decent chunk of Jersey is east of Manhattan).

An area doesn't need to be devoid of all water in order to sprawl forever, obviously. The sprawl can go in other directions.

No one said it plays absolutely no role. Almost everything plays some role. But it's comparatively meaningless. It isn't a determining factor. If Silicon Valley were in Philly or Chicago they would probably be about as expensive as Bay Area. There are no major geographic constraints around San Jose, where prices are insane.
Yes, desirability and economy have some of an effect on real estate prices, but geography 100% plays a very important role in real estate prices. Those areas with the most land constraints, and the most build-up, are usually the most expensive...

Some of the fastest growing US cities population and economy wise currently: Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Orlando, Phoenix... are also some of the cheapest real estate in the US. Why? Because they have vast amounts of available, build-able land.

Chicago is sort-of constrained by Lake Michigan, but can sprawl forever North, South and West. Chicago also builds a ****-ton of skyscrapers, which relieves real estate prices.

You really don't think it's a coincidence that the MOST expensive cities in the US are coastal? San Francisco, NYC, Boston, LA, San Diego, Seattle, Honolulu, Miami, etc.

San Francisco has all the recipes for being expensive. Between the ocean and the bay, and the mountains, and a strong economy.

NYC is hemmed in between the ocean, the bay, large rivers, etc... it is also EXTREMELY built up, so has gradually gotten more expensive over a few centuries. It also has a very strong economy, and is one of the most desirable cities in the world for real estate purchases/investment.

Ditto Miami, which is one of the most desirable cities in the world for real estate purchases/investment. It's also in between the ocean and the Everglades.

LA is in between the Ocean and mountains.

Honolulu is on an island.

San Diego is between the Ocean and the mountains.

Seattle is hemmed in between large bodies of water and the mountains.

Boston sits on the ocean, and the city itself is hemmed in between large bodies of water/rivers.

Coastal cities are the most expensive... this is no coincidence.

DC is the only one that is artificially expensive. Strict height limits spread development outward and make land expensive. The real estate cannot be relieved upward by building skyscrapers. This, and the fact that it's the home of the US government.

Philadelphia and Chicago have much, much more available, developable land comparatively. This is the main reason why they're cheaper.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2017, 02:30 PM
 
2,474 posts, read 2,240,988 times
Reputation: 1786
Quote:
Originally Posted by RightonWalnut View Post
Yes, desirability and economy have some of an effect on real estate prices, but geography 100% plays a very important role in real estate prices. Those areas with the most land constraints, and the most build-up, are usually the most expensive...

Some of the fastest growing US cities population and economy wise currently: Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Orlando, Phoenix... are also some of the cheapest real estate in the US. Why? Because they have vast amounts of available, build-able land.

Chicago is sort-of constrained by Lake Michigan, but can sprawl forever North, South and West. Chicago also builds a ****-ton of skyscrapers, which relieves real estate prices.

You really don't think it's a coincidence that the MOST expensive cities in the US are coastal? San Francisco, NYC, Boston, LA, San Diego, Seattle, Honolulu, Miami, etc.

San Francisco has all the recipes for being expensive. Between the ocean and the bay, and the mountains, and a strong economy.

NYC is hemmed in between the ocean, the bay, large rivers, etc... it is also EXTREMELY built up, so has gradually gotten more expensive over a few centuries. It also has a very strong economy, and is one of the most desirable cities in the world for real estate purchases/investment.

Ditto Miami, which is one of the most desirable cities in the world for real estate purchases/investment. It's also in between the ocean and the Everglades.

LA is in between the Ocean and mountains.

Honolulu is on an island.

San Diego is between the Ocean and the mountains.

Seattle is hemmed in between large bodies of water and the mountains.

Boston sits on the ocean, and the city itself is hemmed in between large bodies of water/rivers.

Coastal cities are the most expensive... this is no coincidence.

DC is the only one that is artificially expensive. Strict height limits spread development outward and make land expensive. The real estate cannot be relieved upward by building skyscrapers. This, and the fact that it's the home of the US government.

Philadelphia and Chicago have much, much more available, developable land comparatively. This is the main reason why they're cheaper.
Agree that both geography and desirability play a part in real estate prices but it's still supply and demand and I think desirability plays a bigger part. I get your point on the expensive places being geographically constrained but that's a small part of the reason.

Noone has to pay those expensive prices to live SF, Seattle or NYC etc... As you noted places like Dallas have vast amounts of land which is why it's cheap. Why would anyone purely on a financial decision live in any of the most expensive cities vs. for example Dallas. Those cities also have lots of jobs and fortune 500 companies etc..

If it was strictly a matter of high costs for geographical reasons we would all choose to live in one of the more affordable interior cities. Clearly there's a desire to live in many of the coastal cities whether it's the beauty, culture, jobs etc, and enough demand that prices can be driven up so high, with that demand continuing. Look at Honolulu, expensive purely based on desire to live there.

Last edited by Ebck120; 07-29-2017 at 03:16 PM..
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.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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