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.
Nothing I have posted is anything remotely "trolling". You keep posting nonsense, and then when people call you out on your made-up nonsense, start name-calling.
Makes no difference. There is nothing in these cities that would be considered traditionally urban.
Makes absolutely no difference. Size is irrelevent to urbanity. Houston could have 20 million people and will never offer something remotely comparable to Manhattan.
Houston offers none of these things. It doesn't offer "comparable amenities", it doesn't offer "higher standard of living" if you want urban, it doesn't have a better job market, it doesn't have lower COL, just cheaper houses, it doesn't have higher wages relative to costs. It doesn't have similar international diversity, entertainment, or shopping.
You are the only one who thinks that cities are interchangable, and as long as there are jobs and houses and restaurants, then it's all the same, so just pick the cheapest city. If that's your preference, then, yeah, find the cheapest housing costs, and go with it. Other people consider different things when choosing a place to live.
Same thing. More desirable means that people think the living is better. If they thought the living was better somewhere else, they would move there.
Plano is a cornfield in Texas. Not getting the difference. There's no urban fix within even 1,000 miles of Plano.
Then why did you start this thread already? The entire thread is based on your confusion re. why some places are more desirable than others, and why more rich people in Manhattan and LA don't move to a cornfield in Plano, TX.
Has little to do with NIMBYism. These places are expensive because people want to live there. And NIMBYism is usually intended to preserve desirability. Why would people want to make their neighborhoods worse by following your idea to turn nice areas into junk to lower housing prices?
And NYC built far more housing than any other metro area last year. No one builds more than NYC, yet prices haven't come down. And LA was the #2 metro in terms of housing construction. DC and SF were also near the top. There goes that theory.
Cheap cities tend to have less housing construction than the expensive coastal metros, except for a few Sunbelt sprawlers like Houston and Dallas, which have tons of natural population growth. Places like Seattle and DC have a lot more housing construction than places like Chicago and Detroit, yet are far more expensive and NIMBY.
There is nothing remotely urban about the fourth largest city in the country? A city has to have brownstones and rowhouses, block after block of architecture from the early twentieth century for you to consider it urban?
Houston not diverse? Not international?
OK, clearly. More than a sunny cloudless day, you know nothing. You're just peddling elitist snobbery. And AGAIN you're confusing things up for yourself because cities on the coasts will always be more desirable I never argued that. But what I am trying to say is that prices have skyrocketed to a point where it's getting beyond any true measurable value. Prices haven't gone down in NYC due to the high demand and short supply. As More People Move In, New York City Suffers Affordable Housing Crisis : NPR
LA is also going through a housing crisis as both LA and SF had to amend their general plans to allow for developers to build more housing due to the shortage. How do you not know this or do you just make stuff up as you go? This has caused a big riff in the state that Gov Jerry Brown had to step in to curb all the NIMBYism. Growth in LA was due to the construction boom in which regulations were curbed in order for developers to build. Now there is an initiative in LA to curb all the development in order to "preserve" neighborhoods. All three cities are in a housing shortage crises and this is evident to the politicians there yet all you do is argue the opposite.
This is beyond unreal. You DON'T know what you're talking about. Quit acting as though you do.
You're not reading posts, you're just responding in a silly/emotional manner.
No one claimed that Middle America was only poor folks, or that Columbus, OH was a small town, or that these random cities you're mentioning don't have jobs and cheap housing.
We understand that less desirable areas are cheaper, but you seem to have a problem with this basic concept. Understand this concept, and you won't be confused about where people choose to live, or why housing costs vary.
No you're one not reading posts right. I said that its not only poor folks that "don't value culture" moving from NYC LA SF to these other cities but other upper middle and middle class folks moving to these other cities. Other professionals.
So once again, you're under this impression that I don't get that NYC and LA and SF are more desirable, but I never argued that. I don't know why you keep going in circles about this WHEN THIS WASNT THE POINT. The point was that people have other options that aren't a tumble down the stairs level of a downgrade like it once was decades ago. There are other major cities in the developing south and Mid West such as Houston, Dallas, Austin, Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, SLC, Minneapolis, that are underrated.
That's completely subjective, no? There are people like you who believe Dallas is not a "tumble down the stairs level of downgrade" and would be perfectly fine living there. For others, it would represent a major downgrade. There is no one-size-fits all here.
I know Philly was on a campaign (still on a campaign?) to attract New Yorkers to the city by playing up its lower COL. I'm not sure how successful it's been. I'm sure there are New Yorkers who have relocated to Philly because of the lower COL, but I'm sure there are as many who saw the billboard campaign (yeah, there were billboards) and said "Meh."
If you decide to live in a cheaper city and enjoy it, then good for you. But that's no reason to hate on people who make different choices.
I wonder how many people in this thread make it a habit of approaching luxury car owners and saying, "Hey, you could save a lot of money if you swapped out that fully loaded Jaguar F-Type for a Kia Optima."
But this where the disconnect comes from. I am saying that while those cities will always be a fully loaded Jaguar, that these other cities that I mentioned are not just Kia Optimas but have developed into better forms that offer more so they might now be a nice GT Mustang.
Sure the Jaguar is better and more desired and more expensive but the GT Mustang is also a nice car, desired by some and offers a lot too and it would come down to your value system in the end. What I am saying and what I have been saying all along is that people have better options than they used to.
The point about higher standard of living was only meant to be about average folks not millionaires.
Hartford, Worcester and Central Jersey are all pretty damn cheap. They pretty much have Midwest prices. The only places that would be somewhat expensive are those with easy, direct train connections to Manhattan (so like Princeton area). And even those areas are cheap compared to closer-in suburbs.
And, again, it's the market which determines demand, not you. Your opinion is essentially irrelevent.
Again, they are only pretty damn cheap when compared to New York. They're expensive when compared to Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Houston etc. None of these middling third tier East Coast cities offers that are amenities or job opportunities then the major Midwestern or southern cities.
That's completely subjective, no? There are people like you who believe Dallas is not a "tumble down the stairs level of downgrade" and would be perfectly fine living there. For others, it would represent a major downgrade. There is no one-size-fits all here.
I know Philly was on a campaign (still on a campaign?) to attract New Yorkers to the city by playing up its lower COL. I'm not sure how successful it's been. I'm sure there are New Yorkers who have relocated to Philly because of the lower COL, but I'm sure there are as many who saw the billboard campaign (yeah, there were billboards) and said "Meh."
If you decide to live in a cheaper city and enjoy it, then good for you. But that's no reason to hate on people who make different choices.
Trust me it's only subjective if you're a snob as you and NOLA have almost confirmed and feel the need to see these cities as on a different stratosphere vs what other cities have done to narrow the gap for people across the country.
I mean NOLAs post alone saying that Houston the fourth largest city in the country with high development and international flavor just doesn't even register on the radar as far as anything with what NYC has to offer is silly and utterly elitist. IF that is what subjective means to you than it simply boils down to snobbery being the main value system on your end. I haven't seen an argument on your end that doesn't end with "yeah but you have to live in X".
But this where the disconnect comes from. I am saying that while those cities will always be a fully loaded Jaguar, that these other cities that I mentioned are not just Kia Optimas but have developed into better forms that offer more so they might now be a nice GT Mustang.
Sure the Jaguar is better and more desired and more expensive but the GT Mustang is also a nice car, desired by some and offers a lot too and it would come down to your value system in the end. What I am saying and what I have been saying all along is that people have better options than they used to.
The point about higher standard of living was only meant to be about average folks not millionaires.
But then you would ultimately conclude that the Stang drivers are getting the better deal because they are paying a lot less for a "nice" car.
It really makes no difference what cars (cities) are used in that matchup. Either way, you are assigning your own conception of "worth" to someone else.
Trust me it's only subjective if you're a snob as you and NOLA have almost confirmed and feel the need to see these cities as on a different stratosphere vs what other cities have done to narrow the gap for people across the country.
Right.
I think it must be somewhat cathartic for some people to start these threads and go off calling people "snobs." I don't care if you decide to live in Wasilla or Brooklyn. It makes no difference to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by radiolibre99
I mean NOLAs post alone saying that Houston the fourth largest city in the country with high development and international flavor just doesn't even register on the radar as far as anything with what NYC has to offer is silly and utterly elitist. IF that is what subjective means to you than it simply boils down to snobbery being the main value system on your end. I haven't seen an argument on your end that doesn't end with "yeah but you have to live in X".
I can't speak for him, but Houston doesn't really offer what I want. That doesn't make it better or worse; it just makes it not for me.
Having read his post, though, I would agree that Houston and NYC don't have "comparable amenities." You may not value certain amenities as much, but it's a bit ridiculous to say "New York has transit, Houston has transit." The ability to walk everywhere is an "amenity" in some sense and a lot of people pay for that amenity.
But then you would ultimately conclude that the Stang drivers are getting the better deal because they are paying a lot less for a "nice" car.
It really makes no difference what cars (cities) are used in that matchup. Either way, you are assigning your own conception of "worth" to someone else.
Would you agree that Providence being more expensive than Chicago is an example of the East Coast being overpriced? Your argument can never be settled because you're comparing places on the East Coast that by most metrics are better, you can actually pay more for less city.
But then you would ultimately conclude that the Stang drivers are getting the better deal because they are paying a lot less for a "nice" car.
It really makes no difference what cars (cities) are used in that matchup. Either way, you are assigning your own conception of "worth" to someone else.
Aren't you guys doing the same by chiding the simpleton redneck for wanting a muscle car and not seeing the beauty and sophistication of the Jaguar? And even then I was mostly talking about the average folk. How many average folk can afford a jaguar, even professionals? What part does the average folk get of the jaguar, the exhaust pipe?
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.
