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.
Why Chicago and Philly doesn't have crazy rental prices like other cities
For one thing, everyone is sick of the crime rate in both these cities and the city's inability, blindness and just plain stupidity to figure out how to solve this issue.
Second of all, these cities lack the culture that exists in NYC and SF, that makes young people want to be there and be part of the conversation.
For one thing, everyone is sick of the crime rate in both these cities and the city's inability, blindness and just plain stupidity to figure out how to solve this issue.
Second of all, these cities lack the culture that exists in NYC and SF, that makes young people want to be there and be part of the conversation.
Try again. DC's crime rate is right there and Baltimore's is even higher. Tell me about this SF and DC culture that's more attractive to young people. It's not about culture, it's about high-paying jobs.
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.
But the Bay Area sprawl leapfrogs right over the mountain ranges. The Bay Area can sprawl right into the Central Valley (in fact it already does, to a great extent).
And, as you admitted, the San Jose area has far less geographic impediments than the SF area, yet prices are the same or higher.
I am amazed that people still bring up this geographic impediment argument, despite all evidence to the contrary.
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.
But there is no place anywhere east of Chicago to sprawl, so why isn't Chicago more expensive? Chicago has much greater waterborne impediments to sprawl than NYC.
Manhattan and SI aren't sprawl. Like 95% of the sprawl in the NYC area is nowhere near Manhattan or SI. It's way the heck out in Central and South Jersey, NE PA, Upstate NY and inland CT. None of these areas have geographic barriers, really (some hills, but the sprawl leapfrogs over the ranges).
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock
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.
But you do. Not to the southeast, obviously, but in every other direction.
Why do you have to have flat farmland and no water in every single direction? The only major U.S. metro with such a geography is Dallas, and Dallas isn't even cheaper than other Sunbelt metros, so the theory makes no sense. Dallas isn't cheaper than Houston or Atlanta, even though Houston has the Gulf and Atlanta has hills in every direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock
Similarly if the Atlantic Ocean swallowed South Jersey and Philadlephia is now oceanfront. Philadlephias real estate market would skyrocket.
Why? This makes zero sense. Philly is already very near the Atlantic, not much different than NYC. Why is DC much more expensive than Philly despite being more of an inland city?
And South Jersey real estate is cheaper than that of Philly, despite being closer to the ocean. In fact the most expensive parts of Jersey are furthest from the ocean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock
Im surprised you are fighting this.
I'm amazed anyone would think such a silly thing. Some random person is going to pay 2x the price of the same house in same type area because there's an ocean 100 miles away as opposed to a great lake 2 miles away, or pay 2x because there are some rolling hills nearby as opposed to open prairie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock
The Ocean is 60 miles from Philadelphia. NYC its 0 miles. Manhattan about 10 miles.
Not true. the closest ocean to Manhattan is about 20-25 miles away. There is no ocean 10 miles from Manhattan; those bodies of water all all NY harbor or various bays and estuaries.
The "real" ocean, with decent beaches and the like, is at least 30-35 miles away. The really good beaches are at least 50 miles away. The best beaches are nearly 100 miles away. It's a longer drive from Manhattan to good beaches than from Center City to good beaches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock
Geography + Location is arguably the #1 ingredient for High Cost of Living.
Hey, you're free to your opinion, regardless of lack of logic. Keep thinking Silicon Valley, built on farm fields, is expensive because of a relatively non-proximate ocean or a few random hills instead of having a world-dominant industry.
The #1 ingredient for high housing costs is demand, often fueled by things like employment or amenities. NYC and SF are expensive because they're extremely desirable. Has nothing to do with some hills or ocean. If you moved SV to Philly it would be just as expensive. If you moved Philly to Vineland, NJ, it would be no more expensive.
In fact places right on the ocean within commuting distance to Silicon Valley are even cheaper. Some of the cheapest core Bay Area RE is right on the ocean. Places like Pacifica are dirt-cheap compared to towns right in SV, because jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock
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.
The vast majority of people don't work downtown. This is true for every U.S. metro. So, no, relative distance from downtown has nothing to do with sprawl. NYC could sprawl out 300 miles, in theory.
But there is no place anywhere east of Chicago to sprawl, so why isn't Chicago more expensive? Chicago has much greater waterborne impediments to sprawl than NYC.
Manhattan and SI aren't sprawl. Like 95% of the sprawl in the NYC area is nowhere near Manhattan or SI. It's way the heck out in Central and South Jersey, NE PA, Upstate NY and inland CT. None of these areas have geographic barriers, really (some hills, but the sprawl leapfrogs over the ranges).
But you do. Not to the southeast, obviously, but in every other direction.
Why do you have to have flat farmland and no water in every single direction? The only major U.S. metro with such a geography is Dallas, and Dallas isn't even cheaper than other Sunbelt metros, so the theory makes no sense. Dallas isn't cheaper than Houston or Atlanta, even though Houston has the Gulf and Atlanta has hills in every direction.
Why? This makes zero sense. Philly is already very near the Atlantic, not much different than NYC. Why is DC much more expensive than Philly despite being more of an inland city?
And South Jersey real estate is cheaper than that of Philly, despite being closer to the ocean. In fact the most expensive parts of Jersey are furthest from the ocean.
I'm amazed anyone would think such a silly thing. Some random person is going to pay 2x the price of the same house in same type area because there's an ocean 100 miles away as opposed to a great lake 2 miles away, or pay 2x because there are some rolling hills nearby as opposed to open prairie.
Not true. the closest ocean to Manhattan is about 20-25 miles away. There is no ocean 10 miles from Manhattan; those bodies of water all all NY harbor or various bays and estuaries.
The "real" ocean, with decent beaches and the like, is at least 30-35 miles away. The really good beaches are at least 50 miles away. The best beaches are nearly 100 miles away. It's a longer drive from Manhattan to good beaches than from Center City to good beaches.
Hey, you're free to your opinion, regardless of lack of logic. Keep thinking Silicon Valley, built on farm fields, is expensive because of a relatively non-proximate ocean or a few random hills instead of having a world-dominant industry.
The #1 ingredient for high housing costs is demand, often fueled by things like employment or amenities. NYC and SF are expensive because they're extremely desirable. Has nothing to do with some hills or ocean. If you moved SV to Philly it would be just as expensive. If you moved Philly to Vineland, NJ, it would be no more expensive.
In fact places right on the ocean within commuting distance to Silicon Valley are even cheaper. Some of the cheapest core Bay Area RE is right on the ocean. Places like Pacifica are dirt-cheap compared to towns right in SV, because jobs.
The vast majority of people don't work downtown. This is true for every U.S. metro. So, no, relative distance from downtown has nothing to do with sprawl. NYC could sprawl out 300 miles, in theory.
One of the reasons I love Chicago...proximity to Lake Michigan, downtown on Lake Michigan...it's all pretty amazing.
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.
n.y.c., boston, s.f. have fairly low unemployment rates. combined with one of the highest (the highest ?) educated population and high median income salaries, people are willing to spend half-a-mill on a 1-floor condo in a 3-family in an average neighborhood.
or you can do what my boy does and rent a room in dorchester with 4 roomates for 500/mo.
Per capita DC and Seattle are the highest. But Boston and SF are not far off.
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.
Chicago is one of the top cities for finance, in the US. It's the home of the Chicago Board of Trade, and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Plus, there is plenty, to entertain in Chicago. SO, I'm just responding to your diminishing, of Chicago. http://www.investopedia.com/articles...eer-cities.asp
Last edited by Enean; 07-30-2017 at 04:25 PM..
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 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.
