3 ms·
> Outside of a few notorious coastal metros, the multiplier hasn’t changed all that much. Interesting you put it like that. I looked at the same graphic and th
by quietbritishjim 6y ago
> Outside of a few notorious coastal metros, the multiplier hasn’t changed all that much.
Interesting you put it like that. I looked at the same graphic and thought "ah, apart from the sparesly-populated central areas, the multiplier has changed radically, similarly to the pattern in the UK".
At the end of the day, the conclusion is that the pattern is commonly reflected in (sub)urban areas and not in rural areas - and neither of those facts is more important than the other.
- bhupy 6y agoIt's not just sparsely populated areas. The tool lets you see it on a per-MSA level. Here's a list of the most populated metropolitan areas in the US -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistic... Among the top 10, only 3 experienced a substantial multiplier increase (New York, LA, Miami). Among the top 20, only an additional 4 (San Francisco, Seattle, San Diego, Denver) That means only 7 of the top 20 most populated MSAs experienced a substantial multiplier increase. It's largely dependent on local land use policy.