tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29127973.post4097338535022409516..comments2023-10-27T03:16:03.213-04:00Comments on Burgh Diaspora: Battle of the Public Intellectuals: Edward Glaeser vs. Richard FloridaJim Russellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13078184665418828961noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29127973.post-31264104927287302432014-07-24T11:31:15.232-04:002014-07-24T11:31:15.232-04:00Asserting something ad nauseam does not make it tr...Asserting something ad nauseam does not make it true.<br /><br />You're revealing the shallowness of your ideas.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29127973.post-39406128186132528842014-07-23T15:33:26.188-04:002014-07-23T15:33:26.188-04:00"For example, the median sales price for a ho..."For example, the median sales price for a house is $265k in the US but only $170k in high in-migration Phoenix in Feb 2013"<br /><br />A few variables comprise demand. Regarding migration, you can't just look at the net number. You have to consider household income as well. There are other consideration such as the migration geography. <br /><br />If a neighborhood with super restrictive supply is off the map of wealthy in-migrants, then you get a Rust Belt city effect.<br /><br />The geographies of concern are where demand is greatest, not where supply restrictions are greatest.Jim Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13078184665418828961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29127973.post-74457237547098270352014-07-23T15:06:55.156-04:002014-07-23T15:06:55.156-04:00I'm not sure what you mean by " the bulk ...I'm not sure what you mean by " the bulk of the cost depends on demand ". For example, the median sales price for a house is $265k in the US but only $170k in high in-migration Phoenix in Feb 2013. Not only does that leave me wondering how Richard Florida label Phoenix "high cost" but I'm wondering how new houses were 40% cheaper in Phoenix than the US median.<br /><br />Maybe I'm wrong but the first problem with all sorts of folks in this area is they don't limit themselves to new housing. IMHO that's exactly where one would expect to see the biggest effects of zoning + regulations on cost. <br /><br /><br />http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2013/03/28/phoenix-home-prices-show-365-percent.html?page=all<br /><br /><br /><br />Overall though, if I'm picking up what you're laying down, essentially you're saying "look guys, it has some nuances." I can see that. For example, the Twin Cities is generally not considered to be expensive for housing when median household income is factored. I would add another minor but not cheap factor, the cost of basements ( gotta go a lot deeper to drop below the frost line up there ).<br /><br />Yet within the Twin Cities you'll find some niche markets that have outgrown the metro as a whole. For example, even in the land of 10,000 lakes there aren't many lakes around as big as Lake Minnetonka and in the Twin Cities. The price of housing there is nutts. $22 million for a house?<br /><br />http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/news/2014/01/21/irv-jacobs-lists-lake-minnetonka-mansiom.htmlAllenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05237280803429555051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29127973.post-67158182085124041832014-07-23T14:08:43.150-04:002014-07-23T14:08:43.150-04:00I don't think you've read the paper.
Yes,...I don't think you've read the paper.<br /><br />Yes, your reasoning requires that developers continue building and building and yet never bring prices down to marginal construction costs.<br /><br />You are not adding productively to the discussion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29127973.post-776466044672384452014-07-23T12:42:53.159-04:002014-07-23T12:42:53.159-04:00"Your reasoning would imply that San Francisc..."Your reasoning would imply that San Francisco can absorb infinite real estate supply."<br /><br />My reasoning doesn't imply that. You fail logic.Jim Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13078184665418828961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29127973.post-58544715503748910682014-07-23T12:31:11.467-04:002014-07-23T12:31:11.467-04:00I mis-cited:
Glaeser/Gyourko 2002
"The Impac...I mis-cited:<br /><br />Glaeser/Gyourko 2002<br />"The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29127973.post-4696978991151623822014-07-23T12:27:31.144-04:002014-07-23T12:27:31.144-04:00You're utterly wrong.
Read Glaeser/Gyourko 20...You're utterly wrong.<br /><br />Read Glaeser/Gyourko 2001. Even then, planning permission carried a huge premium.<br /><br />Your reasoning would imply that San Francisco can absorb infinite real estate supply. You fail econ.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29127973.post-875687778863176752014-07-23T11:08:42.646-04:002014-07-23T11:08:42.646-04:00"Clearly both strong demand and a supply-cons..."Clearly both strong demand and a supply-constraint are necessary conditions"<br /><br />Supply-constraint isn't a necessary condition. Strong demand is a necessary condition.Jim Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13078184665418828961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29127973.post-47162303523760116042014-07-23T11:02:24.901-04:002014-07-23T11:02:24.901-04:00"Ironic"
"You keep using that word..."Ironic"<br /><br />"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29127973.post-32622211888998954272014-07-23T11:00:26.428-04:002014-07-23T11:00:26.428-04:00Clearly both strong demand and a supply-constraint...Clearly both strong demand and a supply-constraint are necessary conditions for soaring real estate prices over >=medium timeframes. <br /><br />Trying to split demand into local/international components is a great example of "not even wrong", given the tight interaction.<br /><br />Oversimplifying doesn't make you visionary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com