If I understand correctly:

Houses near desirable locations (e.g. sports stadiums) are more expensive. There are more of those desirable locations now (more sports teams = more sports stadiums). So the average is driven upwards even with no change to the housing itself.

Is living near a sports stadium really that desirable? I lived a few blocks from the Giants stadium in SF, and I'll never make that mistake again.

Running a 15 minute errand on a game day could take hours. It was impossible to get my car out of the garage or get on/off the highway. The food/trash left on the streets was terrible too, which made walking my dog a PITA instead of a pleasure.

I think the point is that if you live in an American city with a professional sports team, you’re living in an area that offers way more than just a sports team; there are many things of note to do within a 20mi radius.

People who choose to live, say 250mi from the nearest major professional sports team are going to have a ton less job opportunity, things of note to do, but will generally have a lot less to pay because no one else wants to live there.

Ah that makes more sense, thank you! I wasn't looking at it as a proxy for surrounding development, but now I can see why that might be a more nuanced metric than just region size/population.

>Is living near a sports stadium really that desirable?

For me? Absolutely not, haha. But I'm sure it is for others. I have no idea what the average American would say.

Yeah, it's the sports stadiums and not where the paying jobs are. KISS. People want to be comfortable and secure. To be secure you need wealth. To be wealthy you need a high paying job. To get a high paying job you need to live in an urban center. To live in an urban center you need to compete with millions of other like-minded, capable individuals.

If the market was flooded with options nobody would be talking about housing prices. People don't give a single thought about sports stadiums or if you're near a highway/airport or any of that soft nonsense. People are hard: they want a big house that isn't damaged on a nice plot of land above the flood plane where they don't spend 3 hours a day commuting to their job.

>Yeah, it's the sports stadiums and not where the paying jobs are

Who said that?

>People don't give a single thought about sports stadiums or if you're near a highway/airport or any of that soft nonsense.

You might not, but other people definitely do. It's common for people to have criteria when looking for a house (e.g. not having an airport or train station directly in your backyard, being near a good school, being close to x and y amenities, being on a main bus line, etc.). They don't go to a real estate agent and only say "I want a house". Being close to work is a starting filter. Most people apply more filters.

Stadiums were just an example of what people might consider desirable. I think the broader point hervature was making was that what is considered a desirable location (and the cost of being near those locations) has changed in the last 70 years. That is an effect on housing prices which is not clearly captured in the article's analysis.

That conclusion assumes there are options when there are not. There are millions of people priced out of secure housing. People buy what they can. There's no reason to hunt for patterns in noise.

I don’t think it is causative at all. The statement sounds like an AI hallucination. But this is testable. You do probably see some gentrification in the immediate area but you also have the negative externality of parking…

Sure, I have no idea. I was just trying to interpret what the parent poster said.