
Where I Should Live, According to Math - aaronbrethorst
http://munsonscity.wordpress.com/2014/08/14/where-i-should-live-according-to-math/
======
fibbery
I made an interactive map a year ago to explore the same question (where do
you live taking into account factors like income, weather, walkability, crime,
education, politics, etc), check it out if you are interested
[http://two88cities.herokuapp.com/](http://two88cities.herokuapp.com/)

~~~
lotharbot
This is beautiful. I'm curious, did you use it to move? Are you happy with the
move? Would you change certain factors or add anything?

I'm also curious about how you evaluated diversity. For example, my current
city and one I'm intimately familiar with (Denver) scores only a 2 on
diversity, while Boston scores a 5. Ethnically, both cities' largest
demographic is non-hispanic whites (Denver 52%, Boston 47% -- not tremendously
different; when you add in suburbs Boston is considerably whiter than Denver).
The next two groups for Denver are Hispanic or Latino (32%) and Black or
African American (10%), and for Boston Black or African American (24%) and
Hispanic or Latino (17%). Again, these don't seem tremendously different to
me. Denver has the largest Mongolian population in the United States, hosts
one of the largest Native American Pow-Wows in the country, and has had 2
Black mayors and one Hispanic mayor (Boston has never elected a non-white
mayor.) I realize there are other forms of diversity, but Denver does fairly
well on those too (for example, 5.8% of Denver's population is LGBT; Boston is
a slightly higher 6.2%.) Point being, I don't understand what criteria were
used to score these cities on opposite ends of the diversity spectrum given
that they both seem fairly diverse to my eye.

~~~
jjoonathan
Wild speculation: diversity could be measured via the density of "ethnic"
phrases in business names.

When I lived in Boston I noticed a high density of small ethnic grocery stores
/ eateries vs what I was used to in Denver. Within a radius of a few blocks
from where I lived in Boston I had a Korean store, an Indian store, a
Vietnamese restaurant, a Mexican restaurant, a Korean restaurant, and an
Italian restaurant (none of which were franchised). In Denver I had a deli, a
bunch of franchised fast food, and franchised ethnic food (Chipotle, Olive
Garden, etc). My anecdata would score Boston as more diverse in this sense.

~~~
lotharbot
I suspect your anecdata is limited to a few neighborhoods in Denver. Ever
drive on south Federal? It's all Korean grocery stores and Mexican
restaurants.

------
rattray
I'm worried that the census data is too stale. Capitol Hill has been seeing
rents skyrocket in the past few years. I think the same is true in Graduate
Hospital, Philly. (I have lived in both Seattle & Philadelphia).

I can't speak to the other areas, but running big numbers doesn't necessarily
give you better information than people who were already living near "the good
areas". And they've been rushing in to them, driving up rents, since before
the census took its data.

It's a frustrating phenomenon.

~~~
timfrietas
I have a feeling you're right considering the Mission district is also in his
results, and at ~2800 for a one bedroom it is one of the most expensive
neighborhoods in the US.

~~~
_delirium
I think part of the problem is that he's using _median income_ for the census
tract, not a measure of housing cost. The assumption seems to be that a census
tract with a median income similar to his will be affordable for him.

But there are many reasons that might not be the case. Some off the top of my
head: presence of asset-rich but income-poor retirees with paid-off mortgages;
longer-term residents grandfathered in to a gentrified area via rent control
or other stabilization measures; presence of university students, who tend to
both have spending power out of line with their actual income (due to family,
loans, etc.) and access to dorm housing; bimodal distributions where a
moderate median hides a neighborhood that's half unaffordable and half a
ghetto; people with employer-subsidized housing (faculty housing, military
housing); etc.

Other income-based measures might give a better idea, though. Median income of
working-age adults who've lived there <5 yrs could give an idea of what people
who've recently made a similar move make.

------
Spooky23
Be careful with statistics. Spend some quality time in Cambridge in particular
and you will soon learn why it's statistical makeup is what it is.
Cambridgians are either rich or not.

Also look at how he schools work. Cambridge and Boston for example, have
mandatory bussing, so your kids won't go to a neighborhood school.

You should try to use other factors to avoid living in a bad area. For
example, penalize areas within 10 blocks of hospitals and large universities.
Institutions usually maintain slummy property in the immediate vicinity to
make room for expansion.

Also look at property tax rate as a percentage of property value. Higher rate
cities that have cheap rent aren't places where you want to live.

~~~
galago
I work in Cambridge, and feel that your description isn't a bug, its a
feature. Great cities generally have a dynamic mix of people.

~~~
jeremyjh
The author of the SP is using median income as a proxy to estimate how
affordable the housing is to someone like himself. If there are no people at
his income living there, then the type of housing he is looking for is not
available.

------
aaron987
Cool project. I did something similar myself very recently, except I just used
a spreadsheet, and I didn't look at the whole country. I was focused on cities
out west. I found a list on Forbes of the 200 best cities to start a business
(which I would like to do) and used that as a starting point. I then combined
that with walk score, cost of living relative to minimum wage, average
temperature (I want to be somewhere warm), and crime data. I even searched
each city on OkCupid to see how many people had at least a 90% match to me
relative to the city's population, which was an indicator that people in the
area tend to think the way I do. In other words, it meant I would be able to
make friends and get along with people if I moved there.

Using all of that data, I gave each category a rank based on how important it
was, and tallied the results. My top three cities were Vallejo, CA, San
Francisco, and Olympia, WA. I've never been to any of those places, but I want
to leave Ohio. At least now I know where to start looking.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Olympia is a sleepy town without much tech. In general, big cities have big
jobs.

~~~
aaron987
Good to know thanks. I plan to visit the towns before moving there.

Anyone have an opinion of Vallejo?

~~~
rdl
Vallejo is commute-to-SF, although fairly extreme, and pretty horrible for
commute-to-Peninsula.

In my experience, there isn't a whole lot in town itself; it's gone through a
period of bankruptcy and sketciness, although not as dangerous as some other
towns like Richmond, CA.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Taken like that, Olympia could be a bedroom community for....Tacoma. Not sure
about tech jobs there, though. There are state government jobs in Olympia, so
if you are a lawyer...

~~~
will_work4tears
There are a bunch of State Tech jobs too, not just for lawyers. They don't pay
nearly as much as Seattle jobs. Tacoma doesn't either for that matter, and
Tacoma doesn't even have the Government thing going for them (just the base).

There is some "trickle" effect for tech jobs slowly making their way south (I
see regular postings for Tukwilla, Renton and even Federal Way development
jobs), and some in Tacoma, but my experience is they tend to hold onto that
50-60+ hours a week work ethic, but only pay 35-45k. No thanks.

------
n72
Any thought to adding weather? I was in Seattle for two years for a startup
and the gloom almost killed me.

~~~
will_work4tears
Austin seems the obvious choice. Of course it's hotter than hell there, humid,
and you probably have to have an eye out for Tornados.

Personally if I had to pick anywhere but the Seattle area (perfect for me, the
gloom doesn't effect me like it does others), it'd have to be either SLC or
Boulder/Castle Rock (both near Denver).

SF is probably better climate, IMO, and the idea appeals to me, but the cost
of living combined with the traffic... no thanks. Seattle traffic is above
what I consider acceptable, SF would kill me.

~~~
davidw
Boulder and Ft. Collins look pretty good in my book: there's a fair amount of
sunshine even though it gets cold, universities, not too big, lots of outdoor
stuff, and decent tech scenes.

------
tptacek
I'm not sure I understand the criteria. He'd like to move into DC, but DC is
too expensive. So he devises a filter that spits out (among a small number of
other optimal locales) the Mission and Russian Hill in San Francisco. Both are
among the most expensive places to live in the country.

For that matter, optimizing mostly for walkability, the filter spits out
Lakeview in Chicago. But Lakeview is one of the most expensive neighborhoods
in Chicago, and isn't significantly more walkable than many cheaper
neighborhoods here.

~~~
curtis
Likewise, Capitol Hill in Seattle is a very expensive neighborhood -- if you
want to buy. However it's chock full of rental units. I suspect that apartment
rental costs in Capitol Hill aren't anywhere as extreme as trying to buy a
house. I'm not sure that makes it "affordable" by any normal definition,
though.

~~~
curtis
Also on a re-read, I note that the author was not using housing prices as a
measure of affordability:

> Affordability wasn’t hard; I mapped all the census tracts in the country
> that had a median income within $10,000 of mine, both above and below.

I can't speak to other neighborhoods, but in the case of Capitol Hill I
suspect that this measure is a poor proxy for affordability. Capitol Hill
residents might be disproportionately people who are willing to pay a premium
to live in the City.

~~~
gerbal
Instead of using income as a proxy for affordability, using actual cost of
rent by census tract would be way better. The ACS data he used includes Rent
values and property values, both of which are a much better measure of
affordability than income.

Or the sort of data provided by Kwelia.

[1] [http://kwelia.com](http://kwelia.com)

------
fishtoaster
I'd be curious how recent his affordability data is. He mentions Lower Haight
and The Mission, which have an average 1-bedroom rent of 3000 and 3250
respectively[0]. They have, however, increased dramatically over the last few
years, which may not be reflected in his data set.

[0] [http://priceonomics.com/the-san-francisco-rent-explosion-
par...](http://priceonomics.com/the-san-francisco-rent-explosion-part-ii/)

~~~
thrownaway2424
Yeah there is something fishy in this analysis if Russian Hill appears more
affordable than DC suburbs.

~~~
scythe
He used median income. Rich people in the DC suburbs tend to live in mansions,
_because_ they live in the suburbs. [Nouveau-]Rich people in the Mission live
in 1-bedroom apartments because they're hipsters.

The DC suburbs include some of the richest neighborhoods in the country, yes,
richer than San Francisco (where do you think $2T annually in government
spending goes?). Mill Valley also probably has a higher median income than the
Mission, despite cheaper 1-br apartments.

~~~
Bahamut
DC suburbs themselves aren't more expensive than SF or the Valley though in
general, speaking as a recent DC transplant to the Valley. You can find a 1000
sqft 1 bedroom apartment just outside of DC and a few inside DC for about
$2000 a month. Go a little further to even Fairfax and you can get a 2 bedroom
one for even $1600 if you look carefully.

While I haven't lived in the Valley long enough, I'm currently paying about
$2100 a month for just 700 sqft, and other places are even worse around here.

And income may be higher in some respects, but that is pretty much exclusively
in the government sector or law.

------
davidy123
I guess if you want to pretend to live statistically. But once you actually
move somewhere and try to live there you might find it's something else.

~~~
dj-wonk
It is a starting point. Any one statistic is just a summary. (We all
summarize, one way or another.)

------
JoeAltmaier
Iowa City is on that map. Medium-sized cities in 'flyover' states make sense -
walkable, affordable. And Iowa City is a University town, so lots of things
like culture and diversity.

Of course I live outside town, even less expensive. For the price of my San
Jose house on 1/4 acre, I have 80 acres in the country here.

------
kirinan
Capital Hill is one of my favorite places in Seattle. Lots of diversity and
bars though some are a little shady. It doesn't surprise me that it has a high
walk score. Lots of grocery stores, great places to eat all walkable if you
live in the neighborhood. Though Id be weary though, its affordable because it
does have a higher than normal crime rate, but to be fair Seattle has one of
the lowest crime rates in the U.S and by many standards is extremely safe even
in the most dangerous parts of the city. I wouldn't raise kids in Capitol
Hill, though if I was single, interested in night life and wanted to be able
to walk to things I cared about, then capital hill is totally for you.

------
freshyill
I like this. I, too, live _near_ , but not in DC, and my situation is
basically the same as his.

I also like his conclusion of _eh, we 'll just move to Columbia Heights_
anyway. I would too, but this makes me notice one thing that that this whole
thing is missing: schools. I don't know if there's any school data that could
be applied to this, but I bet it would be a good way to narrow down some of
the results.

------
thearn4
I did something similar, but a bit simpler and just within one one region of
my state. I used a GA wrapped around google maps to minimize total expected
driving distance between the university I was attending, the office of the job
I was working at the time, the home of my g/f at the time, along with other
objectives.

------
moron4hire
If you want to stay in the DC area and want to live somewhere that isn't
insanely expensive but also walkable, perhaps look into renting an apartment
in Del Ray, Alexandria. Granted, I'm a bit biased, but it's a cool part of
town and there are _some_ affordable places to live, if you look hard.

~~~
Bahamut
That area, while cheaper, suffers from lack of easy Metro access though. You
pretty much have to bus it to Crystal City for Metro access for the commute.
As far as Metro access goes, Pentagon City and Ballston may be the cheapest
places on the VA side of DC that have proximity to the metro & are close.

The Maryland side is cheaper, but nobody likes Maryland :) .

~~~
moron4hire
No, there is a metro station down on Braddock Road that is a very easy walk
from Del Ray.

And you're right, nobody likes Maryland. Not even Marylanders.

------
arxpoetica
[http://www.coeverywhere.com/CO_official/columbia-heights-
was...](http://www.coeverywhere.com/CO_official/columbia-heights-washington-
dc) <\- where Dave Munson should live. :)

------
xxpor
The box in the article is one section of Capitol Hill. If you're talking to
younger people, they're more likely to think of Capitol Hill as near Broadway
from Pike/Pine up to Roy, and from I-5 to 15th.

------
mgarfias
You’re missing out living in the country.

------
bndw
For what it's worth, that's a nice neighborhood[0].

[0] I've lived within that area

~~~
Dewie
Why do you use a footnote when the footnote is immediately followed by the
corresponing text? Just wondering.

~~~
w1ntermute
It's not a footnote, it's a citation for his claim.[0]

0: Footnotes are typically used to express parenthetical thoughts that are too
unwieldy for inline inclusion, like this one.

------
xxpor
Ugh, how does everyone St. vs Ave. wrong in Seattle?

The map should be 15th Ave and 23rd Ave. Seattle is the only city where I've
seen people struggle with this.

------
aaronbrethorst
fwiw, this is my neighborhood. I live on the very southern edge of that box.

~~~
bndw
Greetings, neighbor

