Discussion

Progress and Poverty

the_sleaze_: > Show an elected officialWhat is the problem this visualization seeks to make obvious? Is it just neat to think about and make?

korkoros: The overall claim is true - yes put it on a map.But I'm not a fan of these particular maps because the use of 3d makes them harder to read. The isometric view and rotation away from north at the top break conventions that people use to orient themselves in the map and connect it to their lived experiences on the ground. I'm reasonably familiar with NYC geography, and I could not immediately recognize the landscape I was looking at in these maps. Ironically, it was only because I already knew the answer to the question that I could do so: "oh that huge green spike must be Manhattan".I think a 2d choropleth map with a diverging color scale centered on the mean value would work better.

svcphr: > "1. People have wildly incorrect intuitions about where land value is concentrated"Fwiw this sort of land value gradient has been studied in economics for ages. See papers on monocentric city model, going back to Alonso (1964), Muth (1969), and Mills (1967). Or even further back, von Thünen was talking back in 1826 about how land values spike as you get closer to the marketplace.

ancillary: Is "land value" the right term here? The NYC example uses assessed property value, which I think is a function of both the land under a property and the building itself. In that case, these "taller means more valuable" graphics are at least partially reflecting the fact that a tall building is probably more valuable than the short one next to it?

francisofascii: [delayed]

AlfredBarnes: Was cool to see a few of the cities, and then cross reference with some searches on pricing to get a better understanding of the actual cost.