Right, I overstated the equivalency, I should've said something like "plays a similar role."
But, does it still cost less to build up than out, in a city with nearby land for the cheap, taking into account that you have to build your upward development in a way to be competitive with 2000+ square foot houses and yards? There's definitely some upwards building being done in the cores of the cities in Texas, but a whole lot more building out. Overcoming the lack of urban planning in the past is where it would get pricey, and need a lot of buy-in.
Would you say the relative cheapness of housing in a lot of Chicago compared to more mountain- or water-locked cities has more to do with the planning/regulatory environment or with the open geography on the non-lake sides?
I guess my point is there is more to it than just geography. Clearly the availability of cheap land lowers the price of housing, but Chicago is more densely built than say Seattle or Portland while also being cheaper. The downtown core is comparably dense to San Francisco but much cheaper.
But, does it still cost less to build up than out, in a city with nearby land for the cheap, taking into account that you have to build your upward development in a way to be competitive with 2000+ square foot houses and yards? There's definitely some upwards building being done in the cores of the cities in Texas, but a whole lot more building out. Overcoming the lack of urban planning in the past is where it would get pricey, and need a lot of buy-in.
Would you say the relative cheapness of housing in a lot of Chicago compared to more mountain- or water-locked cities has more to do with the planning/regulatory environment or with the open geography on the non-lake sides?