3 ms·
Can the answer be both? If you're trying to use it as a chart to figure out home prices it doesn't provide enough information and it's misleading when it comes
by dougmccune 10y ago
Can the answer be both? If you're trying to use it as a chart to figure out home prices it doesn't provide enough information and it's misleading when it comes to determining the numeric relationship between regions. But if you're using it to get a sense of the impossibility of moving from one of the lower-cost parts of the city to one of the more expensive areas of SF, I think this captures that emotional feeling. I say that as a former SF homeowner who used to live right below the base of that big cliff face going from the Richmond up to Twin Peaks/Noe Valley. Looking at home prices in those areas gives you that feeling of smashing your face against one of those cliff walls.
- corysama 10y agoI feel ya. Thanks for making this and thanks for sharing it!
- Camillo 10y agoWhat are you talking about? The Richmond is not adjacent to Twin Peaks or Noe Valley. It's not even close. There are several neighborhoods in between.
- dougmccune 10y agoYou're right, but I was talking about the steady increase in price as you move from the Inner Richmond southeast toward Noe Valley on the sculpture. That cuts through the Haight, Cole Valley, Castro, etc. In terms of how I binned the data by hexagons, that's a diagonal progression across 4 adjacent hexagons, moving from an average price of $766/sq ft on the eastern side of the Inner Richmond across all the way up to $1,050 in Noe Valley. In the photos of the sculpture it might be hard to identify how much that rising part of the sculpture is actually moving south, but it is (and can be seen a bit better if you play with the model yourself or watch the animated gif of it rotating).