The good bad and the ugly (Dallas, Austin: crime rate, house, neighborhood)

[jobert]

Originally Posted by texastea

Like this: Sharpstown, Houston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I remember when this was an upscale area. If you drive through Sharpstown now, it looks like a war zone. Buildings are vacant. Businesses are closing. Can't find a grocery store.

worst part about Sharpstown is that it's 10 miles from downtown Houston..

on the "good" side of town.

Imagine 20 years from now, something like that popping up in North Dallas/Plano, or any random place in North Austin or South Austin.

[ILikeSmartHippies]

From the real estate + capitalistic point of view, "bad" means a neighborhood where real estate values (homes or rental prices or apartments) are low or decreasing, so the low-wage-earners can move into the area & crime increases. Is that what everyone here is basing "the ugly" on?

As an anomaly, I know some high wage earners (including myself :-) ) who are horrible at taking care of yards.. grass wildly overgrown etc.. 'cause I'm too busy to deal with it. So "they keep the lawn mowed and care for their homes" is a good indicator of "the ugly" though it's not a perfect indicator. Maybe a better sign is the dilapidated cars parked in yards and discarded kids' toys scattered amongst the overgrown grass. Or large rise in amount of spoken spanish.

If you talk to some people in Georgetown, they might view "the ugly" as the construction of a large retirement home complex giving rise to grumpy old men & women who demand and complain constantly.. and cause major traffic problems by lumbering their oversized wagons around town when they can't see over the wheel.

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by jobert

you say "compared to large metro areas"
- I am saying "when Austin becomes a large metro area"

If you want a definition of "bad" drive 10 minutes SE of downtown Dallas. Austin doesn't have the broad spectrum of neighborhoods as larger cities, but when it does, expect the same contrasts you find in Dallas, Houston, etc.

Well, I think you're just trying to keep kicking this can down the road, but your presumptions lack any supporting data.

Austin simply doesn't have vast swaths of low income poor populations that are required to create the areas you keep using as examples. Go research your demographics, education levels, dominant industries, etc.

In order to have huge slums someday, Austin would need to have vast industries that attract and employ low wage earners, and then have those jobs start disappearing in droves. Or we would need vast areas populated by 3+ generations of welfare recipients that have been allowed to fall into decay, and we don't have that either. The worst we have is a "light" version of your example areas. Adding population alone won't create what you are describing.

Bottom line, you're trying to cook up and sell a pot of soup for which you don't have the necessary incredients.

Steve

[ILikeSmartHippies]

Does austin have larger % of "affordable housing" (i.e. low income apts)? If so, as a city policy, that would alleviate some of those "low income means bad housing" problems. As I mentioned elsewhere I was surprised (it's a good thing) to see many large such complexes in Georgetown.

[jobert]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

Well, I think you're just trying to keep kicking this can down the road, but your presumptions lack any supporting data.

Austin simply doesn't have vast swaths of low income poor populations that are required to create the areas you keep using as examples. Go research your demographics, education levels, dominant industries, etc.

In order to have huge slums someday, Austin would need to have vast industries that attract and employ low wage earners, and then have those jobs start disappearing in droves. Or we would need vast areas populated by 3+ generations of welfare recipients that have been allowed to fall into decay, and we don't have that either. The worst we have is a "light" version of your example areas. Adding population alone won't create what you are describing.

Bottom line, you're trying to cook up and sell a pot of soup for which you don't have the necessary incredients.

Steve

Not trying to kick any can down any road, does your figure of speech mean the same as "beat a dead horse". I am just unfamiliar with it. Austin metro is around 1.5 million, what i am talking about is 20 or more years from now when this city could be 4 million+ like Dallas, and I am assuming that we will have the contrast that other major urban areas have. Just because we have a "light" version of big city problems doesn't mean it will stay that way. Can you point out any metro area with at least 4 million people that has no horribly bad areas? So what if I don't have census data on hand to support this. There, I said it. What I am using is common sense. 30 years ago people in Dallas said "there aren't really bad areas of town". Well guess what happened? It's good to be an optimist, but saying that Austin will always be rosy is just foolish.

[ZugZub]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

Well, ask anyone I've ever sold a home to and they'll tell you that we cover this extensively. Not in this exact context, but in the context of making a smart purchase in an area that has long term appreciation potential such that the home they purchase will increase in value over time.

Many or most of the factors that will determine the long term viability of an area are the same factors that will prevent that area from falling into decay, or tuning "ghetto", whatever that's suppose to mean.

Areas I recommend generally have a stong community feel, good schools with strong parental involvement, good amenities, good location with proximity to the places people want to go and the things they want to do, access to outdoor recreation and parks nearby, walkability, proximity to employers, etc.

Areas I caution against are areas that simply don't have a track record in the above. Fair or not, that often includes cheap starter home areas that require long commutes to centers of employment.

For example, a neighborhood such as Austins Colony might be a good choice for some people, for a variety of personal reasons, but homes out there sell for less than they did three years ago, the schools are poor (Del Valle Schools), and the commute is far. That rules it out for me, as an investor. As a neighborhood, it will have to work harder to remain viable and avoid decline, which will require strong community involvement and parent involvement in schools.

Contrast that with a neighborhood such as Olympic Heights in South Austin, which is 10 miles to downtown, attends an exemplary rated elementary school, is in the fastest growing zipcode in Austin city limits, and where homes have steadily increased in value over time. I'm not at all worried about Olympic Heights, at all. No chance that it will fall into decline unless the entire city and state do the same.

Steve

Hmmm, good information in this thread! So if I were interested in moving to Austin (which is an area I am considering within the next 18 months or so) what areas should I look in?

I'd be in the market for something up to about $200,000. I don't mind an area that is in transition, as long as the transition is positive. I don't mind doing fairly major work on a property as long as the bones are worth it. And yes, I'd be living there not renting it out. I have no issues with integrated areas, no kids, and I like access to amenities like parks/recreation, entertainment, and the arts.

[CptnRn]

I think real estate values across Austin will hold during 2009-2010 and go up in 2011. This board along is proof of how many people are interested in moving to Austin. That equals growth and demand for housing and property, which will increase property values.

I'm not that familiar with the area out towards Pflugerville, proximity and access to Austin is good. But the relatively high crime rates that have developed along the I-35 corridor will hold the area back. I think North East Austin north of 290 has the potential for nice developments such as Harris Branch, but the highly expansive clay soil conditions out there make development of properties more expensive as well as the maintenance. I was startled to see how quickly the roads deteriorated in Harris Branch.

I think East Austin south of 290 will continue to deteriorate, with the exception of those areas immediately adjacent to the CBD which will see increased gentrification because of the easy access to downtown.

The industrial areas in far East Austin, Ed Bluestein, railroad tracks, and lack of good access to downtown pretty much limit its desirability for development.

Far South East Austin south of William Cannon has potential for improvement and increased development due to the easy access to I-35 and downtown.

South Central Austin will continue to deteriorate with the exception of 78704 and an some extension of the SoCo development, which will continue to improve because of gentrification and easy access to downtown. I was shocked a few weeks ago when I drove thru some of the housing developments around south central Slaughter Lane at how much they had deteriorated and how bad some of the apartment complexes had become. I can't understand property owners that would let their property deteriorate like that.

SW Austin West of MoPac will continue to improve and will blossom once TxDot improves the intersection at the Y.

West and Northwest Austin will continue to grow and improve especially once mass transit along the rail corridor is developed.

North Central Austin will improve due to gentrification and relatively good access into downtown. The far North areas between Austin and Round Rock are already becoming more desirable then the long commute out to Far North West Austin, unless your employment is out there.

[oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots]

Originally Posted by ZugZub

Hmmm, good information in this thread! So if I were interested in moving to Austin (which is an area I am considering within the next 18 months or so) what areas should I look in?

I'd be in the market for something up to about $200,000. I don't mind an area that is in transition, as long as the transition is positive. I don't mind doing fairly major work on a property as long as the bones are worth it. And yes, I'd be living there not renting it out. I have no issues with integrated areas, no kids, and I like access to amenities like parks/recreation, entertainment, and the arts.

Move to Hutto. And that is pronounced Hud-O.

[jobert]

Originally Posted by ZugZub

Hmmm, good information in this thread! So if I were interested in moving to Austin (which is an area I am considering within the next 18 months or so) what areas should I look in?

I'd be in the market for something up to about $200,000. I don't mind an area that is in transition, as long as the transition is positive. I don't mind doing fairly major work on a property as long as the bones are worth it. And yes, I'd be living there not renting it out. I have no issues with integrated areas, no kids, and I like access to amenities like parks/recreation, entertainment, and the arts.

It seems to me that certain prices are "tipping points" for neighborhoods. For example if you pay less than 130K for a house, the neighborhood usually isn't "must-have' and probably won't ever be. This is my opinion from observation, so tear away at me for not having data. again - this is my opinion. If anyone agrees, could this "tipping point" be quantifiable?

[ZugZub]

Originally Posted by jobert

It seems to me that certain prices are "tipping points" for neighborhoods. For example if you pay less than 130K for a house, the neighborhood usually isn't "must-have' and probably won't ever be. This is my opinion from observation, so tear away at me for not having data. again - this is my opinion. If anyone agrees, could this "tipping point" be quantifiable?

Could you clarify what you mean by "must-have"?