HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 3:11 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: there and back again
Posts: 57,324
I remember there being some articles about Midland's office market being bad a few years back, and that it was possible to buy 10-story buildings for around $100,000. The funny thing is things have changed there now, and their occupancy rate is climbing.
__________________
Donate to Donald Trump's campaign today!

Thou shall not indict
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 4:48 AM
DenverInfill's Avatar
DenverInfill DenverInfill is offline
mmmm... infillicious!
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lower Highland, Denver
Posts: 3,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
That's fine.

But if you have two number sets like say...

13, 16, 18, 20, 549, 757, 1006

30, 32, 44, 51, 53, 67, 79

You can't seriously tell me the bottom represent a greater value simply because its median value is higher; the average value of the top is nearly seven times greater than the bottom.

Sorry, but I just don't understand why the median is used the analyze city data.

...

And how are real estate values bounded on the bottom end but not the top end? Both ends fluctuate.

A measure of central tendency, like mean, median, or mode, is a single number that is trying to capture or represent the essence of an entire data set. Consequently, there'll always be a loss of information when attempting to use one number to represent many, but you want to choose the measure that represents the data as best as possible, given the nature of the data set in question.

Some data sets, test scores for example, are naturally bounded on both ends, meaning you can't score lower than a zero or higher than one hundred. Under normal circumstances, there will be a few people that score really poorly (outliers on the low end) and a few people that score really well (outliers on the high end) but most of the people's scores will be clumped in the middle, giving us the bell-shaped "normal curve" if you were plot all scores as a histogram. In cases like these, the mean (average) is the best measure of central tendency because of the symmetrical distribution of the data.

Other data sets, income for example, are naturally bounded on only one end. You can't earn less than zero (that's the bound on the lower end) but theoretically there's no bound (upper limit) to income on the high end. If you were to plot the population's income as a histogram, you'd find that the vast majority of people are clustered at the lower end of the scale, resulting in a steep top-of-the-curve near the far left, with the curve then sloping gently off to the right representing a decreasing number of people who make higher and higher incomes. That gives you a right-skewed distribution--a bell-curve that is stretched or skewed off to the right due to the presence of extreme values at the high end. In a data set like this, the mean is not the best measure of central tendency because it will be influenced (pulled to the right) by the presence of the extreme values at the high end giving you an average that doesn't really represent the essence of the distribution. Therefore, the median is a better measure because the middle value of the entire data set is going to be down at the lower left end where most of the values are clustered.

This is why you always see the median used for attributes such as income and housing prices, while mean is used for things like height, temperature, and test scores. You use the measure that's the best fit for the distribution of the data at hand.
__________________
~ Ken

DenverInfill Blog
DenverUrbanism
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 5:37 PM
pdxtex's Avatar
pdxtex pdxtex is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,119
the pontiac silverdome, as in one of the worlds largest indoor air supported roof structures, along with its multiacre parking lot sold in 2009 for............$583,000
__________________
Portland!! Where young people formerly went to retire.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 5:45 PM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,489
Why the hell is Boston more expensive than New York?
__________________
Spawn of questionable parentage!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2014, 3:17 AM
Chicago103's Avatar
Chicago103 Chicago103 is offline
Future Mayor of Chicago
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
Why the hell is Boston more expensive than New York?
The Bronx, Staten Island and outer Queens.
__________________
Devout Chicagoan, political moderate and paleo-urbanist.

"Auto-centric suburban sprawl is the devil physically manifesting himself in the built environment."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2014, 2:24 AM
brucepf brucepf is offline
Webster,New York
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
Why the hell is Boston more expensive than New York?
Because its a better place to live!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2014, 1:31 AM
Jonboy1983's Avatar
Jonboy1983 Jonboy1983 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The absolute western-most point of the Philadelphia urbanized area. :)
Posts: 1,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evergrey View Post
Where's Indianapolis?
Or Pittsburgh.

This is beyond arbitrary in my opinion. Places like Arlington, VA and Colorado Springs are on the list, but not Indy or Pitt?

Sure, if those aren't major cities, then I'm a martian...

Is there actual data for Detroit? That is unreal...
__________________
Transportation planning, building better communities of tomorrow through superior connections between them today...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2014, 2:41 PM
glowrock's Avatar
glowrock glowrock is offline
Becoming Chicago-fied!
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago (West Avondale)
Posts: 19,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
Doing this by entire city is pretty useless.
+1, +2, ..., +1000000!!!

Aaron (Glowrock)
__________________
"Deeply corrupt but still semi-functional - it's the Chicago way." -- Barrelfish
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2014, 2:51 PM
glowrock's Avatar
glowrock glowrock is offline
Becoming Chicago-fied!
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago (West Avondale)
Posts: 19,689
And for the record, while Houston as taken as the entire city is still pretty inexpensive, that fails to take into consideration that only around 10-20% of the city is actually desirable to live in while the other 80-90% is either industrial, swamp or generally more than slightly ghetto or barrio. In places like Downtown, Greenway Plaza, Galleria/Uptown, Heights, Museum District, Rice U., etc., you're looking at a minimum of $200-250/sf and up for the most part.

It's why taking this on a per-city as a whole basis is ludicrous. Especially for huge cities in terms of area like Houston, Phoenix, etc..., cities with massive nearly dead zones like Detroit. Comparing a city of 600+ square miles like Houston to SF at 55 square miles or a Pittsburgh or a St. Louis also in the 50 square mile range makes no sense at all.

Aaron (Glowrock)
__________________
"Deeply corrupt but still semi-functional - it's the Chicago way." -- Barrelfish
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2014, 2:54 PM
Evergrey's Avatar
Evergrey Evergrey is offline
Eurosceptic
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 24,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by glowrock View Post
It's why taking this on a per-city as a whole basis is ludicrous. Especially for huge cities in terms of area like Houston, Phoenix, etc..., cities with massive nearly dead zones like Detroit. Comparing a city of 600+ square miles like Houston to SF at 55 square miles or a Pittsburgh or a St. Louis also in the 50 square mile range makes no sense at all.

Aaron (Glowrock)
Pittsburgh and St. Louis were not evaluated as there was no room left after Mesa and Fresno.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2014, 7:04 PM
Chicago103's Avatar
Chicago103 Chicago103 is offline
Future Mayor of Chicago
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by glowrock View Post
And for the record, while Houston as taken as the entire city is still pretty inexpensive, that fails to take into consideration that only around 10-20% of the city is actually desirable to live in while the other 80-90% is either industrial, swamp or generally more than slightly ghetto or barrio. In places like Downtown, Greenway Plaza, Galleria/Uptown, Heights, Museum District, Rice U., etc., you're looking at a minimum of $200-250/sf and up for the most part.
Aaron (Glowrock)
This is one of the reasons that for those not interested in the suburban lifestyle and are urbanists the supposed low cost of living in cities like Houston and Phoenix are essentially meaningless. In fact I would actually argue that I think it is easier for a middle class person to live an urban lifestyle in Chicago and possibly even in NYC if we include remote parts of the outer boroughs. I swear I have had conversations with people on websites who live in cities like Phoenix and Houston who make decent money and then talk about how they can't afford the housing in the very urban parts of the city whereas I know lots of people with limited means in Chicago who have no trouble at all. It is because in sun belt cities the truly urban housing stock is very small in size and much of it tends to be new and expensive, there just isn't the tons and tons of older urban housing stock that older urban cities (i.e. there aren't tons and tons of flats and apartments in old buildings in walkable neighborhoods, in the sun belt almost all urban rental housing is probably either new or renovated and considered luxury rental, sure luxury rental in Chicago is more than luxury rental in Houston but in the former there is much more non-luxury urban rentals), I mean is there any neighborhood like Chicago's Bridgeort in Houston or Phoenix? That and the fact that even people living in urbanesque parts of Houston probably need to own a car and might still have to pay to park it in choice areas. Then there is the whole shtick about it being too hot to walk in Houston or Phoenix for much of the year, that is kind of a tangent but this combined with everything else aforementioned are the reasons that many "low cost cities" are essentially worthless to someone of my tastes.
__________________
Devout Chicagoan, political moderate and paleo-urbanist.

"Auto-centric suburban sprawl is the devil physically manifesting himself in the built environment."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2014, 10:58 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evergrey View Post
Pittsburgh and St. Louis were not evaluated as there was no room left after Mesa and Fresno.
In all fairness, Mesa and Fresno are bigger cities than Pittsburgh and St. Louis, even population-wise.
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2014, 11:30 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsule F View Post
Someone please tell me where this cheap property is in Philadelphia?
The ghetto?

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2014, 1:18 AM
Jonboy1983's Avatar
Jonboy1983 Jonboy1983 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The absolute western-most point of the Philadelphia urbanized area. :)
Posts: 1,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
In all fairness, Mesa and Fresno are bigger cities than Pittsburgh and St. Louis, even population-wise.
Even immediately adjacent suburbs of very large cities should have been left out, and I consider Mesa as such a place. I think of it as part of Phoenix

Arlington, VA is on the list, and its population is significantly smaller than that of Pittsburgh and St. Louis. Even still, I think of it as part of DC...
__________________
Transportation planning, building better communities of tomorrow through superior connections between them today...

Last edited by Jonboy1983; Aug 1, 2014 at 1:20 AM. Reason: I incorrectly referenced Alexandria instead of Arlington.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2014, 1:25 AM
JustSomeGuyWho JustSomeGuyWho is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
In all fairness, Mesa and Fresno are bigger cities than Pittsburgh and St. Louis, even population-wise.
... technically true but in all fairness. Mesa is essentially part of Phoenix and while within the city limits, Fresno is bigger than either one, it is nowhere near the influence given the size of the metro areas they anchor. If you ask the average person (who does not live in the southwest) where Mesa is and I bet a pretty high percentage couldn't tell you.

Population wise within city limits, Mesa, Fresno among other cities on the list are not as big as Indianapolis. Using 2013 estimates and discounting metro area, Indianapolis is the 12th largest city in the country. I mean c'mon, they included Arlington, TX (Arlington, VA is not a city) of all places which is just basically a shared suburb of Dallas and Ft. Worth. Since they included Ft. Worth, including Arlington is meaningless (and the numbers are essentially the same). They included Charleston ... whether it is WV or SC doesn't matter since they are both relatively small. I can understand if they were looking for distribution but then they wouldn't have included what are essentially suburbs.

Any way you slice it, the list is lame.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2014, 11:41 AM
glowrock's Avatar
glowrock glowrock is offline
Becoming Chicago-fied!
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago (West Avondale)
Posts: 19,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
In all fairness, Mesa and Fresno are bigger cities than Pittsburgh and St. Louis, even population-wise.
Yes, that is true. But you could fit a large number of Pittsburgh's or St. Louis's in the city limits of either Fresno or Mesa.

Aaron (Glowrock)
__________________
"Deeply corrupt but still semi-functional - it's the Chicago way." -- Barrelfish
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2014, 10:38 PM
Xelebes's Avatar
Xelebes Xelebes is offline
Sawmill Billowtoker
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Rockin' in Edmonton
Posts: 13,829
I'm trying to imagine all the layouts possible with an 7742 m².

Hm, seven floors of 1000 m²? Grand lobby of 100 m², Big kitchen of 50 m², a gallery of 50 m², to take up the bottom floor. Man that almost calls for a sketchup contest. How would you use up all that space?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2014, 10:51 PM
Shasta Shasta is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Boston and Houston
Posts: 1,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by glowrock View Post
And for the record, while Houston as taken as the entire city is still pretty inexpensive, that fails to take into consideration that only around 10-20% of the city is actually desirable to live in while the other 80-90% is either industrial, swamp or generally more than slightly ghetto or barrio. In places like Downtown, Greenway Plaza, Galleria/Uptown, Heights, Museum District, Rice U., etc., you're looking at a minimum of $200-250/sf and up for the most part.

It's why taking this on a per-city as a whole basis is ludicrous. Especially for huge cities in terms of area like Houston, Phoenix, etc..., cities with massive nearly dead zones like Detroit. Comparing a city of 600+ square miles like Houston to SF at 55 square miles or a Pittsburgh or a St. Louis also in the 50 square mile range makes no sense at all.

Aaron (Glowrock)
Seriously? 80-90% of the City is industrial, swamp, or ghetto or barrio?

I love it when "true urbanists" show their true colors. If you really think 80-90% of Houston is undesirable due to industry, swamps, or people of color, then you might not truly be an urbanist at all.

Of course, being from Denver, I can see how you'd be afraid of non-white people.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2014, 6:11 AM
Trae's Avatar
Trae Trae is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Posts: 4,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonboy1983 View Post
Even immediately adjacent suburbs of very large cities should have been left out, and I consider Mesa as such a place. I think of it as part of Phoenix

Arlington, VA is on the list, and its population is significantly smaller than that of Pittsburgh and St. Louis. Even still, I think of it as part of DC...
Pretty sure that is Arlington, Texas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2014, 12:12 PM
Chase Unperson's Avatar
Chase Unperson Chase Unperson is offline
Freakbirthed
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Papa Songs.
Posts: 4,329
The median price for a sq ft in Detroit is $12?!

That is unbelievable.
__________________
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:44 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.