U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-28-2017, 10:04 AM
 
Location: The Left Toast
1,086 posts, read 1,344,168 times
Reputation: 744

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2e1m5a View Post
San Francisco and Boston are physically tiny cities that have priced out poverty. DC is right behind them. NYC is NYC. The housing in all of these cities is also inflated by foreign investment.


Philly and Chicago are much larger cities than Boston/SF/DC and have much more poverty.
Philadelphia, is the "city of homes"-with a multitude of affordable rowhomes. This helps to keep prices stable on every level.
Spot on., but I must add that city once held two million residents, so there's STILL room for at-least four hundred thousand more. Also Philly is the combined size of Boston & San Francisco with a population roughly the size of both cities combined. So there's still room for population growth as well as housing stock to be utilized as well as new developments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-28-2017, 10:21 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
27,612 posts, read 24,808,715 times
Reputation: 11185
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2e1m5a View Post
San Francisco and Boston are physically tiny cities that have priced out poverty. DC is right behind them. NYC is NYC.
These are expensive metros, not just expensive core cities. DC, Boston, SF and NYC have expensive housing well outside of its urban core.

"Supply and demand" is a fairly obvious answer, but it should also be obvious that incomes in these cities are significantly higher than they are in most of America, so the prices people are willing to pay for a given property are also much higher.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2017, 10:32 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
27,612 posts, read 24,808,715 times
Reputation: 11185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenses & Lights. View Post
Spot on., but I must add that city once held two million residents, so there's STILL room for at-least four hundred thousand more. Also Philly is the combined size of Boston & San Francisco with a population roughly the size of both cities combined. So there's still room for population growth as well as housing stock to be utilized as well as new developments.
But then how does that explain much higher prices in the suburbs?

Median Home Value

Montgomery County, MD - $454,700
Loudoun County, VA - $452,300
Howard County, MD - $429,100
Anne Arundel County, MD - $334,100
Prince William County, VA - $333,100
Chester County, PA - $325,800
Bucks County, PA - $308,800
Montgomery County, PA - $292,300
Prince George's County - $254,700
Delaware County, PA - $232,700

DC has a lot of sprawl, but it's low-density sprawl is still more expensive than low-density sprawl practically everywhere else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2017, 10:37 AM
 
Location: Reading PA
172 posts, read 189,064 times
Reputation: 216
Philly and Chicago are not as popular with wealthy foreigners with deep pockets who love buying and renting in NYC, San Francisco, LA , Miami and DC . This in and of itself puts upward pressure on local real estate markets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2017, 10:40 AM
 
Location: Boston Metrowest (via the Philly area)
4,265 posts, read 7,192,396 times
Reputation: 3952
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
These are expensive metros, not just expensive core cities. DC, Boston, SF and NYC have expensive housing well outside of its urban core.

"Supply and demand" is a fairly obvious answer, but it should also be obvious that incomes in these cities are significantly higher than they are in most of America, so the prices people are willing to pay for a given property are also much higher.

Incomes are indeed the highest in the country in metros like DC, SF, Boston and NYC for large cities, but it's also clear that incomes are not keeping pace with the cost of housing. The differences in income, outside of perhaps the upper crust of each city, do not make up the different in the cost of housing for the average Joe: Salary needed to buy homes in US cities - Business Insider
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2017, 10:41 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
27,612 posts, read 24,808,715 times
Reputation: 11185
Quote:
Originally Posted by chocisful View Post
Philly and Chicago are not as popular with wealthy foreigners with deep pockets who love buying and renting in NYC, San Francisco, LA , Miami and DC . This in and of itself puts upward pressure on local real estate markets.
Foreign investment is a cause of more expensive housing in those cities, but I wouldn't consider it a proximate cause. In Miami and Vancouver, yes. In San Francisco, NYC and DC, no.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2017, 10:45 AM
 
Location: Boston Metrowest (via the Philly area)
4,265 posts, read 7,192,396 times
Reputation: 3952
Quote:
Originally Posted by chocisful View Post
Philly and Chicago are not as popular with wealthy foreigners with deep pockets who love buying and renting in NYC, San Francisco, LA , Miami and DC . This in and of itself puts upward pressure on local real estate markets.
Bingo. Real estate investors/speculators are a HUGE factor. Being that real estate is seen as one of the most stable investments, there's a lot more to gain in the cities you mention in terms of recouping investment.

Quote:
Take an evening stroll on either side of New York’s Central Park and you will notice how few lights are on in the newer apartment buildings. That’s because no one lives there.Across the globe, empty luxury apartments darken many of the most desirable cities—Miami; San Francisco; Vancouver, British Columbia; Honolulu; Hong Kong; Shanghai; Singapore; Dubai; Paris; Melbourne, Australia; and London. The reason: The world’s richest people are buying these grand residences not to live in but to store their wealth. In Paris, for instance, one apartment in four sits empty most of the time.
The Hidden Costs of the World's Ghost Apartments
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2017, 10:48 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
27,612 posts, read 24,808,715 times
Reputation: 11185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino View Post
Incomes are indeed the highest in the country in metros like DC, SF, Boston and NYC for large cities, but it's also clear that incomes are not keeping pace with the cost of housing. In order, the differences in income, outside of the perhaps upper crust of each city, do not make up the different in the cost of housing for the average Joe: Salary needed to buy homes in US cities - Business Insider
Core cities are their own unique animal.

My point is that income seems to be the big driver in housing costs. That's true in Manhattan and San Francisco and also true for sprawling, low-density suburbs outside of DC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2017, 11:15 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
27,612 posts, read 24,808,715 times
Reputation: 11185
Rent Asked $2,000 and greater (vacant-for-rent and rented, not occupied housing units)

Montgomery County, MD - 1,657 (26.3%)
Fairfax County, VA - 1,199 (19.0%)
Montgomery County, PA - 588 (9.3%)
Delaware County, PA - 439 (7.2%)
Loudoun County, VA - 435 (27.0%)
Prince William County, VA - 308 (11.1%)
Howard County, MD - 297 (18.8%)
Chester County, PA - 256 (9.3%)
Bucks County, PA - 255 (5.6%)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2017, 11:23 AM
 
9,701 posts, read 6,676,246 times
Reputation: 9775
It's very simple. Chicago and Philly aren't as desirable. If they were more desirable, they would cost more.

Chicago is a great city, but isn't as urban or aesthetically nice, has bad weather, sits in the most boring part of the country, has high crime, a so-so economy, and isn't a glamorous locale.

Philly is also a great city, but has limited professional jobs, some really crappy zones, is kinda cliquish and tribal and just 70 miles from the most important city on earth.

I will note that really nice parts of Chicago and Philly are basically as expensive as NYC, Boston, SF, DC, etc. You will pay millions if you want something really nice and well-located in Rittenhouse Square or on the Gold Coast.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top