Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton
The complete opposite is true. In fact, even *within* NYC, affordability correlates perfectly with population growth.
|
I don't know what you're talking about. First all of NYC is unaffordable, so it makes no sense to compare within a city that is 100% expensive. There is no place, anywhere, within NYC limits that is remotely affordable for typical American standards. The whole city should be losing population according to your theory.
Second, Manhattan has the highest population growth in NYC, and is most unaffordable, while Staten Island has the slowest population growth and is least unaffordable.
Yes, within NYC, affordability generally correlates well with population growth. The least affordable areas generally have the fastest growth (except for rich landmarked areas, which can't grow). But that's irrelevent, because the entire city is unaffordable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton
As the increased desirability of urban living has come up against the constrained housing supply, the resultant soaring housing costs have finally started to take a bite out of urban growth. Growth slowed in all the cities with insanely restrictive growth policies in the past year, including SF and NYC, and accelerated in places with cheap housing.
|
This is all nonsense. The cities with the cheapest housing had the worst population numbers, and the cities with the most expensive housing had the best population numbers.
Among the older U.S. cities, the biggest gainers are all expensive, NIMBY cities: NYC, DC, Boston, SF. The biggest losers are all cheaper, pro-development cities: Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Chicago (though a somewhat different type of city than the others), etc.