|
|
|
|
|
|
by hn_throwaway_99
2520 days ago
|
|
|
As usual when looking at metro stats, a lot of it has to do with how you slice "city" and "metro". If you look at the top combined statistical areas, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area, I would argue that the top 6 all have serious housing affordability issues that I've heard about quite frequently, and the reason they're not as bad as SF/Seattle is that (a) they're not as geographically constrained and (b) most of these are older cities (e.g. NY, Chicago, DC) which were already bug on an absolute basis and thus could better absorb growth. |
|
|