5 ms·

If this were true, I'd think Manhattan apartments would be cheap.

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
Manhattan apartments are subject to a lot of the same price forces as commercial equipment. Their cost reflects the ready access to money making opportunties.
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
They would be if there wasn't so much money to be made in Manhattan. The price of Manhattan apartments has almost nothing to do with how desirable it is - other than the fact that desirability is largely a function of the financial opportunities there. Park City, Utah is expensive and nothing like Manhattan - so is Malibu and Ketchum, Idaho. San Jose is a large city and much more expensive than NYC (in terms of house prices). Outside of downtown and a few neighborhoods nearby, it's mostly a car-hell. Los Angeles isn't far behind in terms of prices - it's the second largest city in the US - and the majority of it is less walkable than halfway decent suburbs. On the flip side, Chicago is mostly walkable and bikable - yet it's substantially cheaper. Does that mean people don't want that? I doubt it. You can find plenty of counter-examples based on price and population and trying to extrapolate what people want. People like a lot of different things. Looking at one desirable place isn't going to tell you much. If you can make an argument that Manhattan has so much financial opportunity BECAUSE it's walkable, bikable, mass-transitable - I'm listening. But keep Chicago in mind. Because it has all of those things - is the second most densely populated city and the third most populous - yet it's basically average price for the country - which makes sense, because it also has average wages and high property taxes...
- shuckles 4y ago
  You’re comparing incomparable values. San Jose house prices are high because you can’t amortize the land costs. Square foot by square foot, Manhattan land is far more expensive than San Jose. Chicago land may appear cheaper, but it’s only because they have higher taxes on it than San Jose.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
    > Square foot by square foot, Manhattan land is far more expensive than San Jose. People can't finance land. You finance housing. Sqft / sqft for housing, Manhattan is not much more expensive. The land is much more expensive BECAUSE you can build much more housing.
- woopwoop 4y ago
  Manhattan does not sit atop some massive pile of natural resources. Opportunity is great there exactly because there are so many people. Network effects are large. By the way, I do not think New York is expensive because it is desirable. It is expensive because it is desirable, there aren't enough places to live, and they aren't building more because of regulations. But it would not be expensive if no one wanted to live there.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
    Everything you said is true about Chicago - and yet Chicago has median home prices. Why is NYC so much more expensive? Because people can make more money to spend on more housing in NYC...
    - woopwoop 4y ago
      Everything I said is not true of Chicago. Chicago has not underbuilt housing for almost a century.
      - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
        When prices start to diverge from the 70s to today - Chicago's metro population grows from 7M to 8.9M (27%) [1]. NYC metro population grows from 18.3 to 19.8M (8%) [2]. It's harder for NYC to under-build for a century when the population has not grown as much. Chicago isn't exactly a developer's utopia... [1] https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/22956/chicago/population https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/22956/chicago/population [2] https://www.macrotrends.net/states/new-york/population https://www.macrotrends.net/states/new-york/population If you isolate just the city - NYC does grow from 7.8M to 8.8M (12%). Manhattan goes from 1.54M to 1.69M (9%). Chicago's downtown population growth is >40%.
        woopwoop 4y ago
        This is pretty far afield at this point, but while Chicago may not be a developer's paradise, it's substantially better than New York. In any case, though, the original question is whether population density actually makes a place less desirable. The mere fact that Chicago is not cheap (not simply inexpensive, but actually cheap) contradicts the claim that population density is something people don't want.
dangus 4y ago
In contrast to Manhattan, Tokyo apartments are cheap, or, at least, their price has remained flat when adjusted for inflation over decades. That's because of government policy that encourages housing supply. Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-housing-crisis-in-japan-home-prices-stay-flat-11554210002 https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-housing-crisis-in-japan-ho... If New York could similarly encourage speedier housing construction and replacement, as well as effectively building a similarly expansive and reliable transit network, they could achieve the exact same results as Tokyo. (Note: Even though Japan has had periods of economic stagnation and low birth rates, Tokyo itself has consistently grown in population with few exceptions as Japan has become more urbanized.) If the suburbs are so great for housing supply, why do suburban Boston/San Jose/Austin/Denver homes cost so much? Why are Chicago's most prestigious zip codes more affordable than living an hour outside of San Francisco? The truth is that the places with high housing prices don't have high prices based on whether they're suburban, rural, or urban, they have high prices when demand exceeds supply. It's that simple.
- woopwoop 4y ago
  Agreed. My point was that the reason you can finance such high-density construction in Tokyo (and New York) is exactly because so many people want to live there, which in turn is because of the network effects created by the people who do live there. It's a virtuous cycle, if you can get it.

Manhattan apartments are subject to a lot of the same price forces as commercial equipment. Their cost reflects the ready access to money making opportunties.

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago

They would be if there wasn't so much money to be made in Manhattan. The price of Manhattan apartments has almost nothing to do with how desirable it is - other than the fact that desirability is largely a function of the financial opportunities there. Park City, Utah is expensive and nothing like Manhattan - so is Malibu and Ketchum, Idaho. San Jose is a large city and much more expensive than NYC (in terms of house prices). Outside of downtown and a few neighborhoods nearby, it's mostly a car-hell. Los Angeles isn't far behind in terms of prices - it's the second largest city in the US - and the majority of it is less walkable than halfway decent suburbs. On the flip side, Chicago is mostly walkable and bikable - yet it's substantially cheaper. Does that mean people don't want that? I doubt it. You can find plenty of counter-examples based on price and population and trying to extrapolate what people want. People like a lot of different things. Looking at one desirable place isn't going to tell you much. If you can make an argument that Manhattan has so much financial opportunity BECAUSE it's walkable, bikable, mass-transitable - I'm listening. But keep Chicago in mind. Because it has all of those things - is the second most densely populated city and the third most populous - yet it's basically average price for the country - which makes sense, because it also has average wages and high property taxes...

shuckles 4y ago
You’re comparing incomparable values. San Jose house prices are high because you can’t amortize the land costs. Square foot by square foot, Manhattan land is far more expensive than San Jose. Chicago land may appear cheaper, but it’s only because they have higher taxes on it than San Jose.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  > Square foot by square foot, Manhattan land is far more expensive than San Jose. People can't finance land. You finance housing. Sqft / sqft for housing, Manhattan is not much more expensive. The land is much more expensive BECAUSE you can build much more housing.
woopwoop 4y ago
Manhattan does not sit atop some massive pile of natural resources. Opportunity is great there exactly because there are so many people. Network effects are large. By the way, I do not think New York is expensive because it is desirable. It is expensive because it is desirable, there aren't enough places to live, and they aren't building more because of regulations. But it would not be expensive if no one wanted to live there.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  Everything you said is true about Chicago - and yet Chicago has median home prices. Why is NYC so much more expensive? Because people can make more money to spend on more housing in NYC...
  - woopwoop 4y ago
    Everything I said is not true of Chicago. Chicago has not underbuilt housing for almost a century.
    - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
      When prices start to diverge from the 70s to today - Chicago's metro population grows from 7M to 8.9M (27%) [1]. NYC metro population grows from 18.3 to 19.8M (8%) [2]. It's harder for NYC to under-build for a century when the population has not grown as much. Chicago isn't exactly a developer's utopia... [1] https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/22956/chicago/population https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/22956/chicago/population [2] https://www.macrotrends.net/states/new-york/population https://www.macrotrends.net/states/new-york/population If you isolate just the city - NYC does grow from 7.8M to 8.8M (12%). Manhattan goes from 1.54M to 1.69M (9%). Chicago's downtown population growth is >40%.
      - woopwoop 4y ago
        This is pretty far afield at this point, but while Chicago may not be a developer's paradise, it's substantially better than New York. In any case, though, the original question is whether population density actually makes a place less desirable. The mere fact that Chicago is not cheap (not simply inexpensive, but actually cheap) contradicts the claim that population density is something people don't want.

dangus 4y ago

In contrast to Manhattan, Tokyo apartments are cheap, or, at least, their price has remained flat when adjusted for inflation over decades. That's because of government policy that encourages housing supply. Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-housing-crisis-in-japan-home-prices-stay-flat-11554210002 https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-housing-crisis-in-japan-ho... If New York could similarly encourage speedier housing construction and replacement, as well as effectively building a similarly expansive and reliable transit network, they could achieve the exact same results as Tokyo. (Note: Even though Japan has had periods of economic stagnation and low birth rates, Tokyo itself has consistently grown in population with few exceptions as Japan has become more urbanized.) If the suburbs are so great for housing supply, why do suburban Boston/San Jose/Austin/Denver homes cost so much? Why are Chicago's most prestigious zip codes more affordable than living an hour outside of San Francisco? The truth is that the places with high housing prices don't have high prices based on whether they're suburban, rural, or urban, they have high prices when demand exceeds supply. It's that simple.

woopwoop 4y ago
Agreed. My point was that the reason you can finance such high-density construction in Tokyo (and New York) is exactly because so many people want to live there, which in turn is because of the network effects created by the people who do live there. It's a virtuous cycle, if you can get it.