Chicago. Here is a random 10-year old condo for $255k: http://www.trulia.com/property/3201711637-222-N-Columbus-Dr-2804-Chicago-IL-60601#photo-12 http://www.tr

Chicago. Here is a random 10-year old condo for $255k: http://www.trulia.com/property/3201711637-222-N-Columbus-Dr-2804-Chicago-IL-60601#photo-12 http://www.trulia.com/property/3201711637-222-N-Columbus-Dr-... Here is an older, further-out one for less than half that: http://www.trulia.com/property/3193730688-3950-N-Lake-Shore-Dr-1322-Chicago-IL-60613 http://www.trulia.com/property/3193730688-3950-N-Lake-Shore-... (still in a decent neighborhood and near a 24-hour rapid transit line) Here is a large 3-bedroom for $485,000: http://www.trulia.com/property/3197384352-212-W-Washington-St-2004-Chicago-IL-60606 http://www.trulia.com/property/3197384352-212-W-Washington-S... Here is a large 3-bedroom, futher out, for $450k in a newly-built brick walkup: http://www.trulia.com/property/3027918821-2550-W-Logan-Blvd-2F-Chicago-IL-60647#photo-6 http://www.trulia.com/property/3027918821-2550-W-Logan-Blvd-... There are a lot of variations on similar themes. Chicago's economy isn't San Francisco's, or New York's, and it doesn't have many exciting software jobs or world-class outdoor recreation. But it is still a big city with big-city opportunities and many well-paying jobs. And it clearly demonstrates that a sufficient housing stock guarantees no building type, even skyscrapers, are inherently tied to high prices. Just as San Francisco's predicament demonstrates that keeping old buildings in place doesn't hold down prices.