| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2007/6/24-28 [Reference/BayArea] UID:47051 Activity:high |
6/24 So here is something that puzzles me. I think we have conclusively
proven that the suburban lifestyle, with its wide streets, plentiful
parking and large back yards is clearly superior to the crowded,
rat-infested warrens in the cities. But why are home prices dropping
in the suburbs, while still going up in San Francisco? Antioch, Vallejo,
Santa Rose, Hayward, Vacaville all nice places with plenty of free
parking, are plummeting in price, while the zip codes in San Francisco
that most people live in, 94117, 94114, 94116, 92131, are all going up.
What is going on here?
http://www.dqnews.com/ZIPSFC.shtm
\_ Hi troll. Prices are drpping in the places you mention because
they suck and have always sucked. Some suburbs are slummy. Shock!
\_ So much for conclusive proof! What's the percentage of Americans
that believe in a literal Hell, or that the world was created in
7 days? Americans == stupid.
\_ Suburbs are usually the last to rise and the first to fall. The
reason: supply and demand. Supply is restricted in the cities.
In the suburbs, not so much.
\_ you mean, demand is higher in the cities.
\_ No, I think it is more a case of supply affecting prices.
\- the issue is probably more of an issue of substiution
effects. if you are a white collar couple taking a
job in sf and want to buy a house in a "nice" suburb,
to some extent palo alto, mill valley, danville, moraga
may all be candidates. if you want to live an urban
lifestyle, you might not even want to live below
cortland or beyond 19th ave ... so maybe you are
considering only say 40% of SF. oakland or downtown
sj are not likely to be substitutes.
\_ I agree with this. The supply of <suitable suburban
housing> is greater than the supply of <parts of
SF I'd like to raise kids in>.
\_ Or to flip it around; suburban housing is
a commodity (Concord =~ Fremont) while urban
housing has intrinsic value. -tom
\_ I wouldn't say it has intrinsic value. Demand
can always fall. See: Detroit. It's just that
supply is limited as compared to the suburbs,
almost by definition. I don't see where SF
has intrinsic value and, say, Black Hawk does
not. Neither of them do, really, except maybe
for their agricultural value and in that case
I would argue a 1/2 acre suburban lot has
more intrinsic value than a condo on the 30th
floor of a building in SF or NYC.
\_ If you think SF or NYC is anything like Detroit
you are a moron.
\_ What makes them different? Detroit was
a major US city and a good place to
live. It still (arguably) is. However,
what happened in Detroit is that all
the wealthy people fled to the suburbs.
This proves that an 'urban lifestyle'
is not necessarily more intrinsically
valuable than a suburban lifestyle.
\_ No, it proves that Detroit and
San Francisco are different, in a
way that Concord and Fremont are
not. -tom
\_ You can't get much more urban
than Detroit. So perhaps the
allure of SF is not that it is
urban?
\_ Does Detroit have a higher
density than San Francisco or
NYC? In what way is it more urban?
\_ It's a lot larger, for one.
\_ Larger in area or population?
A large spread out city is
not "urban" is is suburban.
\_ Are you going to claim
that Detroit is suburban?!
\_ No, I just dispute the
claim that it is "more
urban" than NYC and SF.
Since you can't even
define a value that
makes Detroit more
urban, I think you
should admit that you
are wrong. LA is even
denser than Detroit
and huge swaths of LA
are unarguably
suburban.
\_ What's more urban:
Somerville, MA
or SF? Population
density doesn't
tell the story.
You even say
that you concede
Detroit is urban, so
what's your point?
I said "you
can't get much
more urban than
Detroit" not
"Detroit is more
urban than NYC".
Can you read?
You forget, urban is a racist code word for Black. _/
\_ What point are you trying to make?
There are great cities and
shitholes. People want to live
in great cities and they don't
want to live in shitholes. -tom
\_ The point is that urban is
not necessarily more desirable,
which seems to be your thesis.
\_ No, my thesis is that cities
like San Francisco have
inherent value, not that
all cities do. Or at least,
not all cities have
inherent value > 0. -tom
\_ What's unique about
San Francisco? Would
you say most cities
are "like SF"? I see
weasel words here.
\_ SF has a beautiful
location, a vibrant
culture, neighborhoods
with great services.
I would say some
U.S. cities and more
European cities are
like SF in those
ways. -tom
\_ If you are buying a house for where to live
when civilization collapses, then yes, you
are correct. But giant planned developments
don't have character. Easy as that. The fact
is that good urban areas are high demand low
supply. Suburban areas are a dime a dozen in
this country. Land out in the middle of
nowhere is cheap. If you have the money to
front it you could create a new development
area in a few years. You can't make a world
class city no matter how much you try.
\_ "Urban cityscapes with character" and "giant
planned suburban developments" are not
the only two choices. I could argue
that there are only 3 "world class
cities" in the US: New York, Chicago, and
LA (Alpha world cities). If you include
beta world cities then you get SF, too.
So where does that leave, say, Seattle?
What about Santa Barbara? Can you
create another Honolulu? It's not so
easy to create a Blackhawk or a Danville.
If a developer could, he'd do it.
\- washington dc is a special case.
there are alpha people there because
they need to be there at a certain
point in their life. not sure about the
status of chicago now.
\_ Demand can fall, but a house in San Francisco
will always be something different than a
house in Blackhawk, whereas there are
dozens of isomorphic Blackhawk-like
communitites. -tom
\_ I wonder if you've ever been to Blackhawk?
Each house there is unique. I don't see
how you can honestly claim BH is cloneville
while apartment complexes are somehow
unique and artful or something. You have
that backwards.
\_ In Blackhawk, the houses may be
individual, but the community is not.
-tom
\_ Blackhawk can be replicated on any
place you can get a bit of land. Things
like natural ports cannot be.
\_ Which would matter if I was a
shipping company. If Blackhawk
could be replicated anywhere then
it would happen and the values
in Blackhawk would fall, so there
must be something unique about it.
Why aren't Emeryville or Albany
priced like Blackhawk even though
they are on the Bay?
\_ The ability to move goods is an
intrinsic and rare value in a way
that a golf course is not. I am
amazed you cannot see that.
\_ Which benefits me as a
resident how?
\_ If you don't see how being
near jobs and commerce is
valuable, then there is no
way that it could be
explained to you.
\_ So SF is near jobs
and commerce, but
Walnut Creek is not?
\_ Blackhawk could be replicated
and it will. It costs a shitload
of money to start up however, and
there is significant risk that
it will be a failure, so there
aren't 1000's of wanna be
Blackhawks popping up.
\_ Why would it fail? It's so
easy to replicate.
\_ What is unique or interstng
about this home?
http://www.csua.org/u/j0m
Developers are in fact
building little gated
golf course communities
similar to Blackhawk everywhere.
The only reason that Blackhawk
is worth more is because it is
near San Francisco.
\_ I guess my answer is,
thanks to tom, "It is in
Blackhawk."
\_ That's no answer.
There's nothing in
Blackhawk except houses
and golf. -tom
\_ What is unique or interesting
about any random new condo
development in SF?
\_ Most places selling in
SF are not new condo
developments. Personally
I think people buying
in China Basin are crazy.
\_ It is in SF. -tom
\_ Emeryville and Albany don't
have huge houses and they're
not gated communities. The total
real estate value per acre is
almost certainly much higher
in those cities than in
Blackhawk. -tom
\_ The point here is that
well-heeled citizens who
have choices have voted with
their dollars and not in
favor of SF. That must
imply that there is some
benefit to living in a
place like Marin or
Blackhawk or Pebble Beach
over living in Nob Hill, at
least for many people.
\_ Funny, the million+ dollar
sf market is still going
strong. There's a serious
lack of supply for the insane
places (2m+?)but those still
sell fast fast fast.
\_ The market in Texas
is hot, too. So what?
\_ For $2M homes?
\_ Wrong. The top end market
in San Francisco is much
stronger than Blackhawk.
Marin is comparable perhaps.
Why did home prices in the
Blackhawk zip code drop 6.5%
and go up in The City?
\_ How many billionaires live
in Blackhawk? The City has
at least 20.
http://www.csua.org/u/j0n
\_ http://tinyurl.com/3cgruz
I am not sure why this
is relevant. Many
millionaires maintain
many homes. I can be
a lot less selective
when I own 5 houses
than if I own 1. Is
The Hamptons a better
place to live than
Manhattan? What if I own
places in both?
You don't see how this is a response to the-/
comment "The point here is that well-heeled
citizens who have choices have voted with
their dollars and not in favor of SF."
The billionaires, who are the most well
heeled and have the most choices, have
voted with thier dollars (and feet) and
it has been for Pac and Presidio Heights,
not Blackhawk.
\_ One person (or 13) does not create a market. If I'm a
billionaire I might own places in SF, London, NYC, Montana,
Hawaii, and Nebraska. What does that really mean? The fact is
that there are a lot of people who can afford to spend $4-5M+
for a house in SF, that live/work near SF, that also choose
not to be in SF proper.
\_ Forbes clearly has 20 SF billionaires on this list. I think
wiki is wrong, btw.
http://www.forbes.com/static/bill2005/state_California.html
And yes, not every rich person in the world chooses to live
in San Francisco, or even a city at all. Many Bay Area
billionaires live in Atherton or Palo Alto. Maybe you
should talk about Atherton being a unique and desirable
suburb, instead of Blackhawk.
\_ We can talk about Atherton if you want. Blackhawk was
just an example. If it makes you feel better to say Atherton
or The Hamptons then go for it.
\-I dont know where in the thread to put this, but you cannot
look at the ultra wealthy because they dont need to make
any tradeoffs. Usually you are trading of things like
square footage, close to work, swimming pool, back yard,
view, culture etc. If you are a billionaire, you can have
a swimming pool + view + yard + close to work + 2 car
garage (dunno about tenis court) in pac heights. But if
you budget is "only" say $1.5m then you are going to have to
order your priorities as you pick between Moraga and SF.
I remember looking at a place that was like $850k and didnt
have parking ... can you imagine spending 15min looking for
parking coming backto your $1m house? If they super wealthy
are constrained by physical issue and legal ones, not money.
So if you want a to live on a lake or high on a hill, then
SF doesnt work, or if you wnt to do something architec-
are constrained by physical issues and legal ones, not money,
which is the overwhelming "limiting reagent" for the rest
of us. So if you want a to live on a lake or high on a hill,
then SF doesnt work, or if you wnt to do something architec-
turally SF wont let you, or you dont want SF weather etc.
\_ This is the point I was trying to make. Also that when
Larry Ellison tires of SF fog he goes down to his Malibu
house. Does that mean he prefers an urban SF
lifestyle to life on a Montana ranch? No, it just
means he has enough money to go where the mood
strikes him. Aspen is a great place to own a house
when you want to ski and pick up snow bunnies before
jetting off to the Maui house. It's a crappy place to
live full-time for most of us. Is quality of life better
in Aspen than anywhere else? Not for most of us, but
prices don't reflect that. That is another example
of a city that is (to some extent) constrained by supply
rather than demand. Aspen isn't so expensive because
1,000,000 people want to live there. It's expensive
because 1,000 people that have the money want to own
a vacation house there and there are only, say, 500
such houses.
\- hello, you may enjoy reading about PECUNIARY
EXTERNALITIES ... a word everyone is going to
learn as the Plutocratization of Society continues.
Actually you may not enjoy reading about it.
\_ Translation: "Hello, I read XYZ and you didn't
so I know more than you. Actually, you're
too dense to read XYZ, so why don't you take
my word for it because I'm snooty and I know
better. See E GLAESER paper if you're this tall."
\- gee you really have a bug up your ass.
it's not an enjoyable read because it is a
depressing thought, not because it's hard
like say the theory of chromatic abberations.
EGLAESER not hard to read, however you may
be E_TOOSHORT.
\_ Translation: "Fuck you asshole. Shit,
I've been trolled!"
BTW, the quanlity of life probably is better in
Aspen because it is highly likely that people in
Aspen say dont have to worry about health care,
retirement, being outsourced, paying for kids educ,
they have autonomy in how they live their lives etc.
BTW, you can make places artificially expensive
by having things like minimum lot sizes ... so Aspen
probably has artificially kept down supply. This
may also apply to house prices all over. See E GLAESER
paper on this. |
| 2007/6/24-28 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:47052 Activity:nil |
6/24 Partha alert, you have mentioned this issue before, here an
Economist has done a study on it (splitting the check):
http://www.csua.org/u/j09
\- your capitalizing "Economist" caused problems for my high
speed parser. i thought you were talking about The Economist.
Unwinding from that local minima, was very expensive.
otherwise it didnt say much that wasnt obvious i thought
[although thanks for posting it]. i think in practice,
dealing with the check splitting problem relies more on
social skills rather than econ theory ... the freeriding
problem is totally obvious in the case of strangers.
the realistic problem is how to split with friend and
friends of friends, and how to balance between fairness
and awkwardness ... like how far does somebody have to
drift from 1/n split to make special arrangements.
in general, i think people get off too easily because
too many people buy into the "being judgemenal is bad ...
it is intolerant" view. |