U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-20-2014, 10:08 AM
 
Location: Monmouth County, NJ & Staten Island, NY
407 posts, read 407,778 times
Reputation: 661

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod View Post
People have to also keep in mind that the Northeast isn't monolitic in terms of cost of living and population density.
Its definitely not monolithic, but I think on average the COL is going to be higher all around compared to some other areas.

In my own particular instance, I'm comparing pretty average middle/upper middle class suburban areas in NYC to some other East Coast metros such as DC, Raleigh or Philly.

Say for example you would like to live somewhere like this in East Meadow LI or here in Old Bridge NJ... you're looking at about $400k-$800 k for a decent home and about $7k-$10k in property tax, plus the expense/distance of commuting by car (tolls/gas) or transit (commuter rail/bus monthly ain't cheap, but still less than driving to Manhattan every day).

This is as opposed to somewhere like this neighborhood in Raleigh NC, where a similarly sized house can be had for between $150k-$500k, with $1k-$3k a year in property tax (and a much lower overall cost of living and commute time). Jobs may not be as plentiful, but for certain industries they are and they do pay very well given the cost of living. The issue comes down to the fact that even with the adjusted cost of living/income, you'll still end up with more for your money (and more money in your pocket) with somewhere like Raleigh: the disadvantage for people being that it's not an hour or less from Manhattan, with all that comes with that. The more I think about it, the less it seems worth it to stay in this region unless I really do start to make a much higher salary lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-20-2014, 12:06 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 21 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,013 posts, read 102,621,396 times
Reputation: 33082
This article speaks only to the Bay Area of CA, but says that area is the only area of CA with greater domestic in-migration than out though it doesn't really give a time period. My feeling is, to paraphrase Pres. Clinton, "It's the jobs, stupid". Please note I am not calling anyone stupid. People don't generally up and leave homes, jobs, family, a social network, etc b/c they are dissatisfied with the urban planning of the area.

California report: Bay Area population gains are strongest in state - San Jose Mercury News
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2014, 12:19 PM
 
Location: New York City
4,036 posts, read 8,942,363 times
Reputation: 3703
Quote:
Originally Posted by never-more View Post
Is it because sprawl is being limited, or because there is no more land left to develop? LA sprawls as far as the eye can see—commuters drive from the Inland Empire for jobs in the city. San Francisco is on a peninsula and land is very limited. It, too, has enormous suburbs that stretch on through Silicon Valley. Where does Mr. Kotkin suggest building cheap, new suburbs? The Northeast and coastal California are expensive for many reasons, but it’s not because the government is discouraging suburbs.

The quote in the article, that the government “wants to destroy the essential reason why people move to California,” is ironic. People moved to California was because it was cheap, warm and allowed working-class people to live a middle class life. It’s the same reason why people now move to Arizona, Nevada, Texas and Florida.

Densification is the only way to bring prices down. It’s not ideology, but mathematics and physics. It’s the only way of fitting large numbers of people into a limited space.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2014, 12:22 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 21 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,013 posts, read 102,621,396 times
Reputation: 33082
Seriously, I don't think Kotkin is very credible. I stand by what I said; it's jobs. Plus, climate. I've known people who moved to CO from CA and they think it's too cold, snowy, etc and many go back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2014, 03:40 PM
 
56,653 posts, read 80,952,685 times
Reputation: 12521
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeepRightPassLeft View Post
Its definitely not monolithic, but I think on average the COL is going to be higher all around compared to some other areas.

In my own particular instance, I'm comparing pretty average middle/upper middle class suburban areas in NYC to some other East Coast metros such as DC, Raleigh or Philly.

Say for example you would like to live somewhere like this in East Meadow LI or here in Old Bridge NJ... you're looking at about $400k-$800 k for a decent home and about $7k-$10k in property tax, plus the expense/distance of commuting by car (tolls/gas) or transit (commuter rail/bus monthly ain't cheap, but still less than driving to Manhattan every day).

This is as opposed to somewhere like this neighborhood in Raleigh NC, where a similarly sized house can be had for between $150k-$500k, with $1k-$3k a year in property tax (and a much lower overall cost of living and commute time). Jobs may not be as plentiful, but for certain industries they are and they do pay very well given the cost of living. The issue comes down to the fact that even with the adjusted cost of living/income, you'll still end up with more for your money (and more money in your pocket) with somewhere like Raleigh: the disadvantage for people being that it's not an hour or less from Manhattan, with all that comes with that. The more I think about it, the less it seems worth it to stay in this region unless I really do start to make a much higher salary lol.
Well, the Interior Northeast has an overall COL on par with metros in NC and VA. So, even the COL aspect isn't monolithic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2014, 03:41 PM
 
56,653 posts, read 80,952,685 times
Reputation: 12521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Seriously, I don't think Kotkin is very credible. I stand by what I said; it's jobs. Plus, climate. I've known people who moved to CO from CA and they think it's too cold, snowy, etc and many go back.
I think your second sentence sums it up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2014, 07:26 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,567,280 times
Reputation: 4048
Agreed that Kotkin is generally bunk. The cost of living in Texas is lower--so is the average wage. And while there is no income tax, property tax is higher, and the dependence on sales tax makes Texas' tax structure regressive: the working class bears the greatest burden, the wealthy pay less by comparison. So it's a good state to be rich in, but aren't they all?

Nearly spat out my coffee when I got to the line in the article, "Kotkin is no conservative." Maybe not conservative enough for the writer of the article?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2014, 11:00 PM
 
Location: Chandler, AZ
5,802 posts, read 5,465,147 times
Reputation: 3113
Kotkin is indeed correct, and has tons of exhaustive research on his website (Newgeography.com | Economic, demographic, and political commentary about places) to prove it.

The fact that the COL in Houston and/or any other major TX city is substantially lower than California isn't open to debate; start with substantially lower housing prices due to zoning & environmental restrictions which blanket the state yet which are non-existent in Texas or not nearly as egregious and devastating to the middle class, which certainly explains why the housing crash which walloped CA in 2007 barely caused a ripple in Texas.

Toss in the difference in gasoline prices between LA & Houston ( currently$.75/gallon) or any other city in Texas, as if you need any more evidence that the long-running 'war against the middle class' which Brown as well as President Obama and his fellow ideologically driven disciples is in full swing and with no end in sight; Obama's DOJ has recently launched a war on automobile dealerships looking and find racism where none exists thanks to their 'disparate results' fetish, another mshot at the middle class that the liberal media won't tell you about.

Those 'no-growth' and/or 'urban containment' dictates of Brown and his fellow Bay Area progressives certainly explain why the fossil fuels and manufacturing industries have been deliberately demolished within California, while neither is the case anywhere in Texas, which explains why Houston is on track to pass another liberal hellhole called Chicago in populationwithin 20-30 years, thanks to the 200,000+ citizens who bailed out as a recent editorial in the Chicago Tribune pointed out.

Brown's addiction to getting this totally pointless 'moderate speed rail' train between Anaheim & SF with ridership and cost projections which are downright delusional makes no sense since it will never be competitive either in terms of price or convenience in a state with terrible schools and crumbling infrastructure, as Kotkin and other demographers (Wendell Cox) and economists (Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams, and Peter J. Wallison among them) have been pointing out for decades.

The ridership projections for the so-called 'Moonbeam Express' are absurd to put it politely, but Brown and his fellow super-liberal and ideologically blinded lefties such as Boxer, Newsom, Harris, Feinstein & Pelosi would rather insist that their dictates be followed even as they make no sense in a state with an exploding level of poverty and a rock-bottom business climate, most of which can be laid at their doorstep due to various policies.

You can start with job-killing and middle-class eviscerating laws such as the Global Warming Solutions Act as well as equally asinine && pointless local mandates, including such boneheaded doozies as the Palo Alto ordinance which requires that all new housing must have an EV charging station installed, which only increases the price of housing on top of the tons of other absurd mandates which homebuilders throughout the state have to deal with.

At least folks in Texas have access to good paying jobs as well as numerous top-notch universities, but unlike the folks in California, they can afford to remain in Texas & pursue a middle class lifestyle and even buy their own home in a nice neighborhood without facing financial ruin if the economy tanks.

Not too many folks can afford those $450,000+ condos going up in downtown LA save for the one-percenters, which brown 7 Obama apparently despise---sometimes!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 02:13 PM
 
Location: Richmond/Philadelphia/Brooklyn
1,263 posts, read 1,273,699 times
Reputation: 741
How the Hell is this correlated with "smart growth". Perhaps you didn't notice, but Both areas are STILL growing, at a reasonable pace.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2014, 11:58 AM
 
Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh
11,810 posts, read 18,810,735 times
Reputation: 11136
Quote:
Originally Posted by never-more View Post
What I find striking from Kotkin is his premise that people prefer single family homes and will only live in multifamily because they can't afford single family homes. This is certainly true for some but it is not true for all. I can afford a rather sizable single family home in the burbs but prefer to live in a small condo in a tower in a highly walkable area.
We are sorting ourselves in this country by state, by city and even by where one lives in each city or county based on what we want. The struggle comes when each of us envisions an infrastructure in support of what we want.
Count me among those who say that urban dwellers pay more than their fare share of property taxes because:
  1. Values tend to be higher on properties, leading to higher property taxes
  2. Infrastructure in support of an urban dwellers life is more highly shared and efficient.
  3. Urban areas are basically subsidizing suburban areas while suburbanites often complain about the very government structure that plays (and pays) to their advantage.
I'd ask Mr Kotkin: "Which is the more sustainable model?" and "Do we just continue to build what people want despite the fact that we, in total, can't afford to sustain it?"
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 > General Forums > Urban Planning
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