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 07-30-2017, 08:24 PM
 
Location: Villanova Pa.
4,908 posts, read 12,497,412 times
Reputation: 2627

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
Philly is also a great city, but has limited professional jobs, some really crappy zones, is kinda cliquish and tribal and just 70 miles from the most important city on earth.
Its 90 Miles to DC not 70.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-30-2017, 08:28 PM
 
Location: Nashville TN, Cincinnati, OH
1,798 posts, read 1,147,373 times
Reputation: 2306
Chicago is pretty expensive in the nice parts of town and they have high taxes. Chicago is not cheap at all. Philly is too close to NY, DC and Boston so that is why is not that expensive
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2017, 08:36 PM
 
3,665 posts, read 1,331,662 times
Reputation: 1549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanderbiltgrad View Post
Chicago is pretty expensive in the nice parts of town and they have high taxes. Chicago is not cheap at all. Philly is too close to NY, DC and Boston so that is why is not that expensive
Philly is 5 hours away from Boston by car so it's not that close. It's only 90 minutes away from NYC going North and 2 hours away from DC going south.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2017, 09:24 PM
 
Location: BMORE!
7,725 posts, read 6,090,728 times
Reputation: 3573
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock View Post
Its 90 Miles to DC not 70.
140 miles to DC from Philly. 90 miles would put you in Baltimore.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2017, 10:28 PM
 
61 posts, read 37,140 times
Reputation: 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by DistrictSonic View Post
Much of this is economic. Philly and Chicago are manufacturing cities, with a lower percentage of knowledge workers.

DC, SF, NYC, Boston are knowledge economy cities with a large percentage of professional workers. In DC, SF, Boston the percentages are over 50% of their respective populations. This drives up costs.
DC - Law, Lobbying, Nonprofits, Government, Contracting, International NGOs, Think Tanks
SF - Technology
Boston - Biotech, Academia, Research

NYC of course has all of the knowledge industries covered to some degree, plus finance and entertainment.

Chicago and Philly have knowledge economies, but comparatively they are weak to these other cities. Plus they have far more housing which is in place.

Except no. There are a few links floating around dispelling the myth that Philadelphia is mostly blue collar. Los Angeles is more of a manufacturing city than Philadelphia is. I believe one article had Los Angeles's blue collar % higher than Philadelphia's. But, it's 2017, not 1957.

Chicago and Philadelphia's diverse economies mean they were able to survive the outsourcing that occurred the last 30-40 years.

Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2017, 10:35 PM
 
61 posts, read 37,140 times
Reputation: 82
This NOLA101 guy is really something. He has been debating with probably over ten people in this thread.

Outnumbered.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2017, 06:27 AM
 
Location: Clemson, SC by way of Tyler,TX
4,774 posts, read 2,924,486 times
Reputation: 3335
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock View Post
Its 90 Miles to DC not 70.
I chuckled.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2017, 07:16 AM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,202,746 times
Reputation: 9842
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpinionatedOne View Post
This NOLA101 guy is really something. He has been debating with probably over ten people in this thread.

Outnumbered.
I don't care if 1000 people disagree. 1+1 doesn't equal 3 just because more people say it does.

The fact is that NYC and SF are more expensive because they're more desirable, not because of a mountain or ocean. There are plenty of cheap cities on oceans or in mountains, and plenty of expensive cities on plains.

And almost every single person who has disagreed is from Chicago or Philly, and so is trying to justify the lower desirability by claiming that all the city needs is water or hills and desirability would skyrocket. It's basically C-D city boosterism 101.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2017, 07:26 AM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,202,746 times
Reputation: 9842
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock View Post
1 more try.

Because its in the Midwest.
But that's exactly my claim, and completely contradicts your argument.

You claim it's because of geography, not location. I have always been clear that location specifics matter. Things like economy, scenery and the like. Not whether or not there's a lake or hills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock View Post
Lake Michigan is a godsend for Chicago and impacts its real estate values very positively. Chicagos home values are 2x-3x as high as its midwest neighbors.
Totally wrong. Chicago has roughly the same home prices as Minneapolis, the second largest Midwest economy. Minneapolis, BTW, has no water barriers like Chicago, so using your theory, should be dirt cheap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock View Post
Manhattans pop density is like 70,000 ppsqmi. where is it going to sprawl to? The Moon?
Manhattan has zero to do with anything. 24 million people in NYC metro, only 1.7 million in Manhattan.

And my neighborhood, just outside Manhattan, and with tons of room to sprawl, has same or higher prices as adjacent areas of Manhattan, so explain that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock View Post
Philly is 60 miles from the Atlantic. NYC is on the Atlantic. Washington is home to the Fed Govt and its printing presses of money and Billion dollar local contracts.
No, NYC is on a harbor. NYC is absolutely not on the Atlantic. There is no open ocean anywhere near Manhattan. Have you ever been to NYC? You cannot surf in Brooklyn or something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock View Post
Completely False.

The Beach Towns of South Jersey are some of the highest valued real estate in the USA. A couple years ago I believe Stone Harbor NJ was the most expensive real estate market in the USA.


Median Home Prices 2017- South Jersey Beach Towns

Stone Harbor- $1.5 M
Avalon- $1.25 M
Longport- $900 K
Sea Isle City $750 K
Cape May $650 K
Ocean City $500 K
LOL! This is dirt cheap for oceanfront real estate along the Northeast Corridor. This supports my argument.

500k for oceanfront homes? You pay that for a nice suburban home in Kansas. You can't get a shoebox in Brooklyn for 500k.

Try like $150 million in the Hamptons. Minimum $10 million for something decent. And MUCH further from Manhattan than the Jersey Shore is from Center City.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2017, 07:30 AM
 
Location: Boston Metrowest (via the Philly area)
4,432 posts, read 7,491,976 times
Reputation: 4302
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
I don't care if 1000 people disagree. 1+1 doesn't equal 3 just because more people say it does.

The fact is that NYC and SF are more expensive because they're more desirable, not because of a mountain or ocean. There are plenty of cheap cities on oceans or in mountains, and plenty of expensive cities on plains.

And almost every single person who has disagreed is from Chicago or Philly, and so is trying to justify the lower desirability by claiming that all the city needs is water or hills and desirability would skyrocket. It's basically C-D city boosterism 101.
I'll just follow-up with a couple of things, furthering that line of logic. Let's accept that "desirability" is the only function of housing prices.

1) "Desirability" is a normative term; that is, it's far from uniform for every person. I can think of plenty of people who would be extremely miserable living in cities like NYC or San Francisco and much prefer cities like Philly and Chicago, for a multitude of reasons. Hence, it's impossible to argue that that City A is more desirable than City B, when such a judgement can vary greatly from person-to-person.

2) If said cities were, in fact, held uniformly as "most desirable" by every person on the planet, then I'm fairly positive they would run into issues of housing supply (something that is definitely the case, even though these cities aren't considered the most desirable by every person on the planet in reality). As such, there is very clearly supply v. demand dynamic at play here, whereby a lack of supply is having a dramatic upward effect on housing prices.

My point is, you can ascribe any reason you want to for higher prices, but the only provable, statistically-driven factor in high housing prices is that there is a finite resource (housing) in an area that doesn't have enough of it relative to demand, regardless of what is driving it. That's all there is to it.
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.


 
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