Mapped: U.S. States With the Most Million-Dollar Homes
September 9, 2024
Mapped: U.S. States With the Most Million-Dollar Homes
Posted by lighthouse0
14 comments
As someone who lives in Massachusetts, I can attest that most of these “million-dollar homes” would be worth about $350k in most other places. The cost of living in the Bay State is killer, but I wouldn’t trade living in New England for the world.
Can you consider a place like Atherton, CA a city?
Not as useful as putting even a single dot in the location for each of the cities so it could convey more than just the count.
What an unhelpful representation. Does Idaho have a meaningfully comparable number of “cities” in comparison to Connecticut? I don’t know, because I don’t know how cities are counted here. But since that’s the population, the data are close to uninterpretable.
I hate this map. Why change the shape of all the states? It just makes it look weird, and the only place that it kinda helps is DC, but there are other ways that problem could be fixed
The four most populous places in WY are Cheyenne (65k population) Casper (60k) Gilette (33k) and Laramie (32k). The definition of “city” has to be stretched pretty far to include a place with 32k people.
Now rank those as sq ft per dollar and acres per dollar….
It blows my mind that people still put out data like this that doesn’t account for per capita (in this case total number of cities). Is California the highest because it’s super expensive (it is) or because it’s the largest state? Really hard to make any meaningful interpretation.
So, states with the most cities also have the most million dollar ones? Take Nevada. They have us down for 4. But we really only have 4 cities of any size. It’s kinda a useless measurement.
Maybe percent of million dollar cities would be better?
This is the oddest grouping. Per capita or something would have been better. Comparing states with 5000 cities to Maine, with like 25 cities is silly.
This is very much abstracted away from home prices.
The description doesn’t help. What’s a “city”? The 35th to 65 percentile of price (I assume) should be compared against the median, not the average, IMHO. Not very clear.
Taking two clumsy measures and make a count of one against the other really collapses the data too much for any meaningful information to be passed along.
I’d say this is borderline misrepresentation. City is a governing construct, defining some boundaries within which city ordinances apply. In this chart, a city that has 1 million-dollar home will count as 1. Another city that has 1 million million-dollar home will still count as 1.
Also, real estate prices differs. Without normalizing it against something, e.g. cost of living, the comparison is meaningless.
New title: total number of big cities, resort/beach towns, and suburbs filled with assholes in each state.
This is not the states with the most million dollar homes. It’s not even states with the highest percentage of million dollar homes.
14 comments
As someone who lives in Massachusetts, I can attest that most of these “million-dollar homes” would be worth about $350k in most other places. The cost of living in the Bay State is killer, but I wouldn’t trade living in New England for the world.
Can you consider a place like Atherton, CA a city?
Not as useful as putting even a single dot in the location for each of the cities so it could convey more than just the count.
What an unhelpful representation. Does Idaho have a meaningfully comparable number of “cities” in comparison to Connecticut? I don’t know, because I don’t know how cities are counted here. But since that’s the population, the data are close to uninterpretable.
I hate this map. Why change the shape of all the states? It just makes it look weird, and the only place that it kinda helps is DC, but there are other ways that problem could be fixed
The four most populous places in WY are Cheyenne (65k population) Casper (60k) Gilette (33k) and Laramie (32k). The definition of “city” has to be stretched pretty far to include a place with 32k people.
Now rank those as sq ft per dollar and acres per dollar….
It blows my mind that people still put out data like this that doesn’t account for per capita (in this case total number of cities). Is California the highest because it’s super expensive (it is) or because it’s the largest state? Really hard to make any meaningful interpretation.
So, states with the most cities also have the most million dollar ones? Take Nevada. They have us down for 4. But we really only have 4 cities of any size. It’s kinda a useless measurement.
Maybe percent of million dollar cities would be better?
This is the oddest grouping. Per capita or something would have been better. Comparing states with 5000 cities to Maine, with like 25 cities is silly.
This is very much abstracted away from home prices.
The description doesn’t help. What’s a “city”? The 35th to 65 percentile of price (I assume) should be compared against the median, not the average, IMHO. Not very clear.
Taking two clumsy measures and make a count of one against the other really collapses the data too much for any meaningful information to be passed along.
I’d say this is borderline misrepresentation. City is a governing construct, defining some boundaries within which city ordinances apply. In this chart, a city that has 1 million-dollar home will count as 1. Another city that has 1 million million-dollar home will still count as 1.
Also, real estate prices differs. Without normalizing it against something, e.g. cost of living, the comparison is meaningless.
New title: total number of big cities, resort/beach towns, and suburbs filled with assholes in each state.
This is not the states with the most million dollar homes. It’s not even states with the highest percentage of million dollar homes.