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.
Its an apples/oranges comparison. Houston's Asian food intermixes heavily with the Gulf Coast cuisine, which gives rise to interesting combinations not seen in LA. On the other hand, LA surely has cuisine mixes/options not seen in Houston.
Well, you will have to wait for the poster to elaborate, so you can have a better understanding of what is being said.
Its not just the options. Its the quanity. La metro has so many asian emclaves i lose track of them.
The entire south/texas cant compete with it, so how can dallas or houston?
That's all well and good, but a lot of people pay more money to live and boring Monday and places on the coasts then a lot of vibrant, interesting places that happen to be further inland. Of course, you believe CSA is a reasonable definition of metro area, so you probably think it makes more sense to live an hour and a half outside of New York City than a prime neighborhood in Chicago.
You're right. I would much rather live in the NYC metro than in Chicago. Not sure what this has to do with the conversation, but, yeah.
And your whole premise is nonsense. If people are truly paying more money to live somewhere, then that somewhere is clearly more desirable than where people are paying less. The market determines what is desirable, not you.
Are you implying that these things can't possibly be attained in "Middle America"?
Speaking very generally, yes. Such things are somewhat less prevalent in, say, Indianapolis, or Columbus, than in, say, San Francisco, or NYC. That's, in part, why Columbus/Indy are cheap and SF/NYC are expensive.
If Indy had beautiful mountains, or sat on the ocean, or had fantastic urbanity, or amazing culture, it, too, would be expensive.
Whether an area is underrated or overrated is irrelevent. At the end of the day it's each individuals choice. I prefer the according to some "overrated" areas of the country i.e. nyc, sf, dc etc, seattle. To me they offer both tangible and intagible experiences that alot of "middle America" cant really offer or at least match. Look at Hawaii, huge cost of living without a huge job market but people spend thousands vacationing there and/or moving there just because its Hawaii when it's just a chain of islands in the middle of nowhere, but it's beautiful and a wonderful style of living to those willing.
At the end of the day locations are priced based on demand and desirability. Nobody is saying that Kansas City does't have museums or nice restaurants, it just doesn't match living in a city where everything is at your fingertips on a larger more trendy/unique and international way.
Thats true.
if la was overrated to most, it wouldnt have a high col.
If la was as cheap as texas, it would have a few million more people.
this goes for nyc, sf etc.
You're right. I would much rather live in the NYC metro than in Chicago. Not sure what this has to do with the conversation, but, yeah.
And your whole premise is nonsense. If people are truly paying more money to live somewhere, then that somewhere is clearly more desirable than where people are paying less. The market determines what is desirable, not you.
The disconnect is that being an hour and a half outside of New York City is actual flyover country. I think you also understand that cost and overall desirability aren't directly correlated when it comes to housing. The overwhelming majority of people simply don't relocate, so housing on the periphery of historical population centers is more costly. There also artificial factors such as zoning and construction restrictions that keep housing stock artificially low.
You're not going to find too many people who know anything about both places who'll tell you Barstow, Ca is more "desirable" than Milwaukee or Bakersfield is more desirable than Houston.
The disconnect is that being an hour and a half outside of New York City is actual flyover country.
But it isn't. In fact it's the exact opposite of flyover country. A 90 minute drive from Manhattan puts you in the middle of NYC-area suburbia. We're talking towns like Westport, Princeton, Huntington.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands
I think you also understand that cost and overall desirability aren't directly correlated when it comes to housing.
Um, yeah, they absolutely are. The cost is a direct function of what people are willing to pay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands
The overwhelming majority of people simply don't relocate, so housing on the periphery of historical population centers is more costly.
That makes no sense. The U.S. is one of the most transient nations on earth, and that has nothing to do with relative housing costs. The periphery of historical population centers are, by far, the cheapest parts of these metro areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands
There also artificial factors such as zoning and construction restrictions that keep housing stock artificially low.
But this has nothing to do with housing costs. Housing prices are only what people are willing to pay. NYC was dirt-cheap in the 1970's, because the city was going in the toilet. It had the same restrictions then as now. SF was cheap too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands
You're not going to find too many people who know anything about both places who'll tell you Barstow, Ca is more "desirable" than Milwaukee or Bakersfield is more desirable than Houston.
Barstow is like the ass-crack of Southern CA. So, yeah, the absolute worst town in Southern CA probably is somewhat less desirable than an average suburb in Houston. That kind of proves my point, if you're actually comparing such things. LA is obviously much more desirable than Milwaukee, or Houston, and for good reason.
Whatever you say.
how are any of those texas cities really close
to what la offers? Shopping, restaurants, interesting/urban neighborhoods, scenery, beaches, art galleries, muesums, universties, tourism, diversity, transit, suburbs, sports/facilties, culture events, fa
Farmers markets, things to do.
are all superior in la.
If you dismiss all these things (and more) guess its a tad overrated in comparison to texas/the south.
Get off it and don't start thinking that this is just boosting. I said almost in the sense that it's no longer just LA and NYC that only offer such things but that they simply offer more and in more variety. I was saying that many things that can be found in LA can be found in an international city such as Houston. That's all. And that you get more bang for your buck too. That's just one example. And I only said overrated compared to the hype. When I first moved to LA I didn't have this grand culture shock. Why? Because I had already experienced a huge variety of international cultures in Houston. I've met and have had foods from India, Russia, Pakistan, Philippines, Guatemala, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Thai, etc etc. LA was just a bigger version. Farmers market? Done. The only thing LA has miles over any other city is scenery. Everything else the gap is not a chasm. Saying otherwise is just boosting on your part.
Have you ever been to other cities anyways? To say that the Grand Canyon gap still exists is to be ignorant and a huge booster.
Last, the situation in CA is more complex than a simple supply and demand desirability thing. Yes, CA will always be more desirable. That's no question. It has superior amenities and qualities about it. I'm not biased like that but the thing that grinds my gears is how much you guys understate the fact that your cities are 5 times the national average cost because of structural problems due to zoning and other issues, not just cus its so desirable. I already explain it in my last post but many are getting hosed due to the artificially restricted supply of housing.
But this has nothing to do with housing costs. Housing prices are only what people are willing to pay. NYC was dirt-cheap in the 1970's, because the city was going in the toilet. It had the same restrictions then as now. SF was cheap too.
Quote:
This is just flat out wrong. Clearly you haven't kept up with the major issue that is tearing up LA and even causing the state government to intervene to block the NIMBYism that's causing the severe housing shortage. Housing costs in cities like LA, NYC and SF have gone over five times the national average due to the artificial restriction of supply. Foreign cash has also propped it up as average Californians can't even afford thier own areas anymore.
Get off it and don't start thinking that this is just boosting. I said almost in the sense that it's no longer just LA and NYC that only offer such things but that they simply offer more and in more variety.
It was never "just LA and NYC". The difference is that in recent years, certain metros have separated themselves from the pack in terms of desirability, as certain niche industries hyperconcentrate in desirable locales, and the best and brightest tend to be drawn to those locales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by radiolibre99
Last, the situation in CA is more complex than a simple supply and demand desirability thing. Yes, CA will always be more desirable. That's no question. It has superior amenities and qualities about it. I'm not biased like that but the thing that grinds my gears is how much you guys understate the fact that your cities are 5 times the national average cost because of structural problems due to zoning and other issues, not just cus its so desirable. I already explain it in my last post but many are getting hosed due to the artificially restricted supply of housing.
But this isn't true. You can't force people to pay a price for housing unless they're willing to do so. Coastal CA is so expensive because it's so damn desirable, not because of artificial housing restrictions or whatever.
It doesn't even make sense because the LA metro has built more housing over the last few decades than any other U.S. metro, so not seeing too many housing restrictions.
I mean, how many places on earth are more desirable than Coastal CA? Not too many. That's exactly why it's so expensive.
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.
