3 ms·
I think the point is more that you should be comparing far-out exurbs to closer-in suburbs of major cities. Of course property in San Francisco or NYC is going
by CydeWeys 8y ago
I think the point is more that you should be comparing far-out exurbs to closer-in suburbs of major cities.
Of course property in San Francisco or NYC is going to be significantly more expensive than far-off sprawl around Houston. As they say in real estate, it's all about location, location, location. Living in the city is highly desirable for many reasons beyond just having lower transportation costs.
- ineedasername 8y agoYes, of course. But that wasn't the point being made by the article. Though even then the math doesn't always hold. I live outside of NYC. A close suburb house costs about 50% more than a mid suburb, which in turn is about 50% more than a further out suburb. That increase in housing costs for close-in is still an order of magnitude more than the decrease and money saved on transporting costs. Just look at the data table the author provides: As housing costs increase, transportation costs decrease, but the total cost of living still increases dramatically