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: Beverly Hills of the South
Coral Gables, Florida 51 10.52%
Buckhead (Atlanta, Georgia) 148 30.52%
Highland Village (Dallas, Texas) 58 11.96%
SouthPark (Charlotte, North Carolina) 12 2.47%
South Beach (Miami, Florida) 77 15.88%
Uptown Houston (Houston, Texas) 43 8.87%
Palm Beach, Florida 134 27.63%
Georgetown (Washington, D.C.) 33 6.80%
Doctor Phillips (Orlando, Florida) 11 2.27%
Galleria area (Dallas, Texas) 20 4.12%
French Quarters (New Orleans, Louisiana) 14 2.89%
Other 32 6.60%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 485. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-24-2010, 10:31 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
4,085 posts, read 7,670,057 times
Reputation: 2648

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jluke65780 View Post
Actually it's more of the fact that places in like South have much more land to build on unlike LA.


Atlanta's Area:
- City 132.4 sq mi (343.0 km2)
- Land 131.8 sq mi (341.2 km2)

Los Angeles' Area:
- City 498.3 sq mi (1,290.6 km2)
- Land 469.1 sq mi (1,214.9 km2)

L.A. obviously has more land to build on in terms of Area. California is a much bigger state than any of the Southern States except Texas, and Nevada, Utah, etc. are larger than the other Southern states, so it's not like they don't have as much land to build on in the West. In fact, the West has more, much more land on which to build than the South.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jluke65780 View Post
Desirability does contribute, but that isn't the only reason for the high cost of living there.
Desirability is definitely the reason for the high costs of living in L.A. versus Atlanta. Why it's more desirable varies by person, but to a majority of people it's more desirable. Think about it - even with prices not being equal, people choose to live in L.A. and pay much more to do so than people who choose Atlanta. So desirability has everything to do with it.

 
Old 01-24-2010, 10:40 PM
 
Location: Underneath the Pecan Tree
15,989 posts, read 30,680,544 times
Reputation: 7281
Quote:
Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny View Post


Atlanta's Area:
- City 132.4 sq mi (343.0 km2)
- Land 131.8 sq mi (341.2 km2)

Los Angeles' Area:
- City 498.3 sq mi (1,290.6 km2)
- Land 469.1 sq mi (1,214.9 km2)

L.A. obviously has more land to build on in terms of Area. California is a much bigger state than any of the Southern States except Texas, and Nevada, Utah, etc. are larger than the other Southern states, so it's not like they don't have as much land to build on in the West. In fact, the West has more, much more land on which to build than the South.



Desirability is definitely the reason for the high costs of living in L.A. versus Atlanta. Why it's more desirable varies by person, but to a majority of people it's more desirable. Think about it - even with prices not being equal, people choose to live in L.A. and pay much more to do so than people who choose Atlanta. So desirability has everything to do with it.
I was talking metro areas and you have to remember LA is pretty much trapped in by the mountains and the ocean.
 
Old 01-24-2010, 10:45 PM
 
Location: Florida
4,186 posts, read 10,301,098 times
Reputation: 1589
Quote:
Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny View Post


Atlanta's Area:
- City 132.4 sq mi (343.0 km2)
- Land 131.8 sq mi (341.2 km2)

Los Angeles' Area:
- City 498.3 sq mi (1,290.6 km2)
- Land 469.1 sq mi (1,214.9 km2)

L.A. obviously has more land to build on in terms of Area. California is a much bigger state than any of the Southern States except Texas, and Nevada, Utah, etc. are larger than the other Southern states, so it's not like they don't have as much land to build on in the West. In fact, the West has more, much more land on which to build than the South.



Desirability is definitely the reason for the high costs of living in L.A. versus Atlanta. Why it's more desirable varies by person, but to a majority of people it's more desirable. Think about it - even with prices not being equal, people choose to live in L.A. and pay much more to do so than people who choose Atlanta. So desirability has everything to do with it.
California is much harder to build on because its very mountainous, its much easier to build on flat land.
 
Old 01-24-2010, 10:48 PM
 
Location: Long Island/NYC
11,334 posts, read 17,098,470 times
Reputation: 6075
Quote:
Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny View Post


Atlanta's Area:
- City 132.4 sq mi (343.0 km2)
- Land 131.8 sq mi (341.2 km2)

Los Angeles' Area:
- City 498.3 sq mi (1,290.6 km2)
- Land 469.1 sq mi (1,214.9 km2)

L.A. obviously has more land to build on in terms of Area. California is a much bigger state than any of the Southern States except Texas, and Nevada, Utah, etc. are larger than the other Southern states, so it's not like they don't have as much land to build on in the West. In fact, the West has more, much more land on which to build than the South.



Desirability is definitely the reason for the high costs of living in L.A. versus Atlanta. Why it's more desirable varies by person, but to a majority of people it's more desirable. Think about it - even with prices not being equal, people choose to live in L.A. and pay much more to do so than people who choose Atlanta. So desirability has everything to do with it.
Keep resources in mind, a lot of the Western States are very dry whereas Southern States aren't.
 
Old 01-24-2010, 10:55 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
4,085 posts, read 7,670,057 times
Reputation: 2648
Quote:
Originally Posted by GLS2010 View Post
California is much harder to build on because its very mountainous, its much easier to build on flat land.


People are throwing just anything out there and hoping it will stick.

California is not very mountainous, and Los Angeles in particular is not mountainous. There are small mountains there and they build on them - try going there one time, and when you go, find the Hollywood Hills and you'll see that they have no problems building on them. Most of the area is flat. The "mountains" are mostly very small mountains or hills, no different from the hills and mountains in Southern states like Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina. In fact, you have the Appalachians and Smoky Mountains cutting through much of the south - the south is probably more mountainous than California.

In any case, the fact remains that most people are willing to pay a lot more money to live in California than anywhere in the South..
 
Old 01-24-2010, 11:02 PM
 
Location: Florida
4,186 posts, read 10,301,098 times
Reputation: 1589
South FL





[http://www.star-island-miami.com/StarIsland_images/star_island_mansion_6.jpg (broken link)

http://www.star-island-miami.com/StarIsland_images/miami_mansion_6.jpg (broken link)

 
Old 01-24-2010, 11:10 PM
 
Location: Florida
4,186 posts, read 10,301,098 times
Reputation: 1589
Quote:
Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny View Post


People are throwing just anything out there and hoping it will stick.

California is not very mountainous, and Los Angeles in particular is not mountainous. There are small mountains there and they build on them - try going there one time, and when you go, find the Hollywood Hills and you'll see that they have no problems building on them. Most of the area is flat. The "mountains" are mostly very small mountains or hills, no different from the hills and mountains in Southern states like Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina. In fact, you have the Appalachians and Smoky Mountains cutting through much of the south - the south is probably more mountainous than California.

In any case, the fact remains that most people are willing to pay a lot more money to live in California than anywhere in the South..
My grandparents live in San Diego, I go there a lot, and I've been in LA a couple times.. and compared to California, the south is very flat and has much more immediate, flat land surrounding the big cities.
 
Old 01-24-2010, 11:18 PM
 
Location: Mequon, WI
7,836 posts, read 19,572,071 times
Reputation: 4435
It's Palm Beach by a mile. Palm Beach County is the wealthiest county in Florida.
 
Old 01-24-2010, 11:19 PM
 
Location: NC, USA
7,088 posts, read 13,044,384 times
Reputation: 3984
Baldhead Island, N.C. semi-tropical, and the movie folks from Wilmington go to the island to escape, as do politicians, labor leaders, et al.
 
Old 01-24-2010, 11:24 PM
 
725 posts, read 1,304,007 times
Reputation: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny View Post


Atlanta's Area:
- City 132.4 sq mi (343.0 km2)
- Land 131.8 sq mi (341.2 km2)

Los Angeles' Area:
- City 498.3 sq mi (1,290.6 km2)
- Land 469.1 sq mi (1,214.9 km2)

L.A. obviously has more land to build on in terms of Area. California is a much bigger state than any of the Southern States except Texas, and Nevada, Utah, etc. are larger than the other Southern states, so it's not like they don't have as much land to build on in the West. In fact, the West has more, much more land on which to build than the South.



Desirability is definitely the reason for the high costs of living in L.A. versus Atlanta. Why it's more desirable varies by person, but to a majority of people it's more desirable. Think about it - even with prices not being equal, people choose to live in L.A. and pay much more to do so than people who choose Atlanta. So desirability has everything to do with it.
You sure about that...? It seems that although LA has a lot more people Atlanta still has a higher annual growth in sheer numbers. It appears as if more people desire to live in Atlanta than LA. La is much bigger therefore they should have a higher growth since more people more babies, but it isn't.

ACTUALLY this decade LA grew by around 500 thousand and Atlanta grew by over a million. LA grew by 4.10% and Atlanta grew by 26.56%. You may want to abandon that hypothesis...


Table of United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The reason property is more exspensive in LA is because they are running out of room to develop and what is left over is scarce thus $$$. A lot of cities in the south are new to the scene such as Atlanta, Houston, Dallas and are just starting to become really developed and there is plenty of space and land is not as scarce. That doesn't mean that buckhead, palm springs and that galleria aren't a steal compared to LA, NY, SF. >>> which is why the growth is crazy in Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston

Is there any wonder why property is so expensive in New York City. Its on a freakin island.
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.


Closed Thread

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