3 ms·
>But I'd say that all that proves is that there's so much demand for not needing to own a personal automobile! It really doesn't. NYC isn't $ARBITRARY_SUBURB e
by thfuran 3y ago
>But I'd say that all that proves is that there's so much demand for not needing to own a personal automobile!
It really doesn't. NYC isn't $ARBITRARY_SUBURB except without obligatory car ownership.
- PaulHoule 3y agoA better comparable is to consider rents in an outlying section of Queens that is far from transit and compare that to Manhattan. For that matter a person could very much live car free in a minor city like Binghamton or Ithaca NY if they work at a place that is well served by transit.
- pkulak 3y agoI totally disagree. Density and transit are the defining traits of NYC. What's something else NYC offers that you can't find in a similarly sized, but spread out, population? Keeping in mind that the population of NYC is about that of the entire Dallas-Ft. Worth metro area, or the entire state of Washington.
- thfuran 3y agoUN HQ, Wall Street, potentially one's family, etc. Cities just aren't fungible. There are way more reasons someone might prefer or be pushed towards one or another besides the traffic or transit.
- pkulak 3y agoHell, if you're listing off important US map pin-points, you can't beat DC. But people would still rather live in NYC (according to the market). But even if NYC had the most destinations, that's just another way of saying "density", which is my entire point. And I'm not talking about personal differences, like family. Paris isn't a world class city because my mom lives there. I get that individuals have reasons to live places. I'm talking about populations, not people.