3 ms·

It appears that you assume more sq. ft. implies higher quality of life. Are you aware of any studies that indicate that's true? I would think that most New York

It appears that you assume more sq. ft. implies higher quality of life. Are you aware of any studies that indicate that's true? I would think that most New Yorkers would consider the traffic mess in a place like Dallas to be an indication of a lower quality of life. I believe there are studies that indicate this is true.

todd8 8y ago
It's not easy to imagine what other people place value on. I like peace and quiet, so suburban living suits me. Others value nice restaurants, good weather, close skiing, professional sports, access to first class health care, good jobs, inexpensive housing, low crime, etc. How can we judge the desirability of different cities with such different styles? It seems there is exactly one reliable way to make this assessment. Look at where people move to. The large cities with the most rapid growth are (from Forbes 2018 list[1]): 1) Boise, ID 2) Seatle-Bellevue-Everett, WA 3) Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX 4) Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL 5) Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 6) Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV 7) Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN 8) Austin-Round Rock, TX 9) Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL 10) Tacoma-Lakewood, WA [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2018/02/28/full-list-americas-fastest-growing-cities-2018/#4a1673a47feb https://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2018/02/28/full-l...
- TulliusCicero 8y ago
  > It seems there is exactly one reliable way to make this assessment. Look at where people move to. Not necessarily. Many cities strictly limit how much housing they have, such that there is a hard limit on the number of people who could feasibly live there. SF is a good example of this, since it's also small and geographically constrained. Saying "well, the net increase in people was small, so therefore it must be that not so many people want to live there" is not necessarily true if physically the city cannot accommodate many more people due to regulations. Looking at where people move to is useful, yes, but high housing prices are themselves often a marker of desirability, particularly in supply-constrained markets.

todd8 8y ago

It's not easy to imagine what other people place value on. I like peace and quiet, so suburban living suits me. Others value nice restaurants, good weather, close skiing, professional sports, access to first class health care, good jobs, inexpensive housing, low crime, etc. How can we judge the desirability of different cities with such different styles? It seems there is exactly one reliable way to make this assessment. Look at where people move to. The large cities with the most rapid growth are (from Forbes 2018 list[1]): 1) Boise, ID 2) Seatle-Bellevue-Everett, WA 3) Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX 4) Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL 5) Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 6) Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV 7) Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN 8) Austin-Round Rock, TX 9) Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL 10) Tacoma-Lakewood, WA [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2018/02/28/full-list-americas-fastest-growing-cities-2018/#4a1673a47feb https://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2018/02/28/full-l...

TulliusCicero 8y ago
> It seems there is exactly one reliable way to make this assessment. Look at where people move to. Not necessarily. Many cities strictly limit how much housing they have, such that there is a hard limit on the number of people who could feasibly live there. SF is a good example of this, since it's also small and geographically constrained. Saying "well, the net increase in people was small, so therefore it must be that not so many people want to live there" is not necessarily true if physically the city cannot accommodate many more people due to regulations. Looking at where people move to is useful, yes, but high housing prices are themselves often a marker of desirability, particularly in supply-constrained markets.