How do you best measure a location's desirabilty?
 

As happens in many threads, recent posts have taken &quot;best&quot; and &quot;underrated&quot; lists and turned them into some methodological debate on how to best measure the desirability of a location. Certain posters on this board argue passionately that a simple census figure provides all that you need to know. <BR><BR>Can absolute growth of a city be interpreted as the key indicator of that area's desirability, or is there more to the argument?<BR><BR>Is it possible that there are factors other than desirability that cause people to move to a place? Is every poster who reads this thread living in the place that they find most desirable? If not, why haven't you magically gravitated to the most desirable place in the country (which, according to the last census, appears to be Vegas)?

Hey John -<BR><BR>Interesting post, and good that it is it's own thread rather than a tangent on some other one.<BR><BR>My input is that there are different criteria for desirability for travel vs. living.<BR><BR>Travel - I'd say the total number of visitors is probably it.<BR><BR>Living - I'd say total population is it. That is the best measure of how many people choose to stay in a particular city.<BR><BR>The flaw, to me, with population growth is that it is only an indicator of momentum. Think of it as a stock whose price rose by $10 in a week, to $100. It's certainly a popular stock with momentum, but it still doesn't have the market cap of the $200 stock (i realize I have oversimplified.... theoretical example only).

I am one of those who doesn't believe that census data can support &quot;desireability&quot; of a particular location. I think of desireability as an intangible (the dream to live in that spot, the happiness they bring along with them, etc.).<BR><BR>There are factors other than desireability that cause people to move from one place to another. Jobs, cost of living, professional development, family considerations, schools, weather, etc. In fact, a city could be highly undesireable place to live yet growing (Mexico City is an obvious example). And a large influx of people could make a once desireable place undesireable in short order (Atlanta is often cited as an example).<BR><BR>Many sunbelt cities are desireable because they offer a lower cost of living and better weather than Northern cities. Many Northern cities are desireable because they offer greater professional development and educational opportunities.<BR><BR>It's all a matter of what's important to the individual decision makers and what motivates them to go from one place to another. Census data merely reports quantity, not quality and is, therefore, irrelevant IMO.

Liam -<BR><BR>Thanks for weighing in. Great points re: census as a valid desirability indicator.

Desirability is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. Different strokes for different folks. That is why we all don't live in the same city. Some cities are better for economic opportunity, some for natural beauty, some for climate, some for retirement, some for certain ethnic groups, some for cost of living. I could go on and on. Size of a city mainly relates to economics, the bottom line. Once you have money you can choose how you want to live.

John... thanks for resurrecting this question. It's a good one and there are several good answers IMHO. I do think that census numbers can measure a metro very well and provide a picture of 'desirability'. You can certainly determin people's preferences by what they do, such as move or not move.<BR><BR>Max - I would think growth does mean something, for the same reason that shrinkage means something. It's a direct measure of attraction or repulsion. If people are fleeing a city, there must be a good reason. Ditto if people are pouring into a city. Maybe the streets really are paved with gold. <BR><BR>Liam - what is personally desirable to you is, as you say, intangible. But there are issues that go beyond a person's individual preference... is the air clean, are there any jobs to be had, is the weather bearable... these generic issues can be measured and the answers are meaningful.<BR><BR>You used the word 'desirability', but I think that the word 'pleasure' is a better fit. Mexico City is not pleasant, but it is DESIRABLE. People really, really DESIRE to move there, as evidenced by the fact that they do so. <BR><BR>An individual's DESIRE to move to, say, Hurleyville, comes from the sum of the job, family, career development, weather, scenery and other factors important to him. A metro area with a lot of growth is being very succesful at giving a lot of people what they want, although different people are rewarded in different ways. A city with a lot of growth is MORE LIKELY to satisfy a randomly selected person than a city with very little growth. <BR><BR>There is also a question of taste. In the last census, Phoenix, Dallas and Atlanta had almost the same population change, but they are very different cities. A rational person would definitely have a preference.

<BR>To Aceplace/me:<BR>The flaws in your logic that population is a measure of desirability are numerous.<BR><BR>1) Many highly desirable places are unattainable due to cost or space limitations. The populations of Aspen and Nantucket and Beverly Hills and Malibu would skyrocket if they were affordable and if the space were available.<BR>But they are much more coveted places than other cities with rapid growth rates like Las Vegas and Phoenix.<BR><BR>2) Desirable to whom?<BR>Tijuana is growing at a very rapid rate. It may be desirable to poor, rural Mexicans who see it as an access point to the US or as a better place than the shack towns of rural Mexico whatever. But is it desirable to you or me? No way.<BR><BR>Calcutta is growing more rapidly than your beloved Dallas. Does that make it a better and more desirable place than Dallas? To people who live there it may be fine (given their lack of alternatives) but not to 98% of people you and I know.<BR><BR>3) If you polled most recent immigrants to this country, they'd tell you that they live where they HAVE to in order to find work, or to be near their support systems/families.<BR>If they could choose among all the cities in the US, I'm sure the vast majority would live elsewhere. And these immigrants make up huge percentages of places like San Diego, LA, Miami, Dallas, San Antonio, etc.<BR><BR>Anyone who tries to defend the statement that population equals desirability is ridiculously simple minded.<BR>That's equivalent to saying that America is a white Protestant nation.<BR>Or that people who live in Seattle like rainy, cloudy weather because if they didn't they'd move away.<BR><BR><BR><BR>

I &quot;desire&quot; to live in Manhattan. I love everything about it. I'd like to spend the rest of my life there. Of any place on earth, it is the place I desire the most.<BR><BR>But I can't afford it, and I can't afford to be away from my aging parents right now. So I have settled for Nashville, which is probably #6 or 7 on the list of places I desire. Definately not top 5.<BR><BR>Does the fact that I moved to Nashville 4 years ago, instead of NYC, mean that I desire Nashville above all others? No way. But it is a sacrifice that I make at this point in my life.

Folks, let's keep this topic alive. The question was, how do you mest measure a location's desirability.<BR><BR>My theory was to use absolute population increase (not growth per capita). <BR><BR>Anybody have a better one?<BR><BR>

Its all about the friendliness and open character of the people that live in or travel to the location you are vacationing to or moving to. Without this quality about people, everthing else is unimportant.

Ross, good point. I've been to places where they laugh at strangers, and to other places where I could feel the hostility on my back.<BR><BR>Do you have any idea how this could be measured or studied, without having to go there in advance?

ME,<BR>I should have listened to an old college friend who lives in the town I have moved to. I didn't trust his opinion and I should have. He told me before I moved here that people are very &quot;clickish&quot; like in high school...closed groups of people who shun anyone new to the town. He was so right. for financial and family reasons I am stuck here probably permanently.<BR><BR>Listen to people with advise and if you don't trust their opinion you are on your own.

No, x, it is neither stupid nor ignorant.<BR><BR>Life is, unfortunately, a series of compromises. In an ideal world there would be no need to compromise our wants and whims. But in practice, we can rarely, if ever, have exactly what we want, the way we want it.<BR><BR>How does one live thru such a frustrating life?<BR><BR>It doesn't have to be frustrating. In the case of not being able to live in NY in order to care for a relative in Nashville, a better outlook would be to a) be happy you can take care of the relative, and b) look for some value in Nashville that you didn't anticipate. <BR><BR>It's possible to see the situation in two different ways.<BR><BR>1. I have to do this thing, and I would prefer not to... so I'm feeling frustrated.<BR><BR>or<BR><BR>2. I'm doing this out of my own free choice, after having looked at the whole problem, and I am retaining control of my life. And when the time comes, I'll make another choice that might include New York.<BR><BR>I think I'd feel better with myself if I honestly believed the second point of view.<BR><BR>And Dussel, this is all my viewpoint. Whatever you do to resolve your problem, it must be your solution, not someone else's. And good luck to you.

I find fast-growing areas undesirable, because they typically have horrendous traffic problems. It takes awhile for new road &amp; rail construction to catch up with the population. Look at Fairfax County, VA, and Austin, TX! Also, a population explosion usually means construction of tons of ugly cookie-cutter subdivisions ruining the once-pretty view. It may be desirable for new people moving to the area, but for long-time residents it's pretty awful...however they ARE often able to sell their homes at an enormous profit, and move to a new place more desirable to them. Come to think of it, where people choose to retire (assuming they have adequate savings) - THOSE are the desirable locations. And yes, I think it has a lot to do with weather. C'mon, all of us have thought at least once how great it would be to have our own island, somewhere warm with palm trees. Well, the richest of the rich...that's where they live. Population = 1 family plus hired help. Small population but very desirable. NO traffic.<BR><BR>Sorry about rambling...just thinking out loud here. And wishing I were someplace warm.

Suzanne, in Dallas, we call those cookiecutter houses &quot;North Dallas Specials&quot;. They're on big houses with small lots, have every possible embellishment, and are gigantic.<BR><BR>But then you look more closely and you find that everything in the house is the bottom of the line... the cheapest possible doorknobs, particle board shelves in the closets, tinny.<BR><BR>Who buys those houses? Usually middle managers who were transferred in from somewhere with a high cost of housing. They made a lot of cash from the sale of a small older house, and just recently took a promotion along with the transfer. <BR><BR>So they feel rich, have a lot of cash, and want to &quot;move up&quot;. They know that in a couple of years, they'll be transferred somewhere else, so they have no long term investment in the house, the job, the neighborhood.<BR><BR>And yes, transportation and traffic is a horrendous problem. We just opened a new rail station in one of these suburbs, and it hit maximum capacity the first day of operation. Lots of pent-up frustration with driving to work.<BR><BR>A much better option, IMO, is to find an older home in a close-in neighborhood. If you need to do some fixing, it's usually a good investment. <BR><BR>Strangely enough, the really bad traffic is out in the far suburbs. Closer in. it's not so bad. One reason is that the older streets are built as a grid. Farther out, the neighborhoods are all cul-de-sac streets, with a few arterials carrying the brunt of the traffic.