Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
Definitely wouldn't have expected it to be L.A.
|
I could see LA/SD as "more expensive" than the Bay Area.
The Bay Area has an insane amount of highly paid jobs. My wife really likes the West Coast, so we both have job alerts set to these areas, and there's an avalanche of jobs in the Bay Area that would suit our skills. In contrast, seems like very slim pickings in LA/SD.
And the "nice" parts of LA/SD are about as expensive. My wife really likes coastal Orange County (places like Corona del Mar and Laguna Beach) and those areas have the same home prices as, say, Palo Alto, Atherton, etc. You get practically nothing for $1 million. Even $2 million is kinda sad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
It's not surprising, but important to note, how strong the correlation is between population decline and loose land use regulation. Chicago could probably be back above 3M in no time with tighter regional land use policies.
|
Yes, Chicago is an outlier in the city and surroundings are extremely pro-development. I'm not clear, however, why restricting development would boost population, as if the people living in 200k homes in corn fields would opt for shoeboxes in Lincoln Park if their present lifestyles were outlawed.