[humanrebar]

> Property in uninteresting cities is very cheap, because nobody wants to be there.

Many more people live in 'uninteresting' cities than 'interesting' ones. They're cheap because of the relatively big supply, not necessarily because of the lack of demand.

[nine_k]

This is interestingly not exactly so. Large cities have disproportionally higher share of population. Compare these areas with equal population in the US: http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-liv...

Worldwide, situation is funnier, 50% of population lives on 1% of the land: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3389041/Where...

[humanrebar]

I was meaning to compare, say, Washington D.C. and Memphis. Most Americans live outside the 'top tier' cities like DC, NY, SF, LA, Chicago, etc. About 26 million (out of 320 million) live in the ten largest cities in the U.S.

Even assuming half of the US lives in cities, about 130 million people live in smaller ones. My point was that smaller cities are actually more popular, and I think the numbers still support that.

[jandrese]

Washington D.C. is a bad example, the actual population of the city is tiny compared to the surrounding suburbs.

[rahimnathwani]

Popular != Populous

More people have kostabis than have picassos. Does that make kostabi more popular?