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, 02:11 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
27,612 posts, read 24,808,715 times
Reputation: 11185

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
OK, but areas aren't cheap because they're lower-income. They're cheap because they're bad areas. NYC doesn't really have bad areas, at least not like in Chicago and Philly.

Williamsburg and the Lower East Side are fairly low-income, but are also incredibly expensive and desirable. They're lower income because of tons of income-restricted housing, not because they're inherently undesirable.
This is straying a bit from the point I was getting at when I responded to that poster. I believe his argument is that Chicago and Philly are cheap, while DC and SF are uber expensive, because the former cities have such an abundance of land area filled with undesirable areas. If only Chicago and Philly could be shrunk down to 50 square miles or so, they'd have the same high housing prices as DC and SF.

My response to that was that NYC, in sheer volume, has even more "less desirable" areas than Chicago and Philly. Not every poor neighborhood in NYC has Bed-Stuy's glorious housing stock that's just waiting to be returned to glory by Wall Street investment bankers. So if Chicago and Philly have low prices because they are so big and full of "less desirable" neighborhoods, then why is NYC so expensive considering its even larger with many more less desirable and not too interesting neighborhoods?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-28-2017, 02:15 PM
 
61 posts, read 31,979 times
Reputation: 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enean View Post
Lol, that logic beats me. I go on real estate sites every day, and I know what's out there. I just have to say, I'm very happy with the choices I've made.

[YT]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFIftMJncd0&feature=youtu.be&t=1m22s[/YT]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2017, 02:15 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 6,676,246 times
Reputation: 9775
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
This is straying a bit from the point I was getting at when I responded to that poster. I believe his argument is that Chicago and Philly are cheap, while DC and SF are uber expensive, because the former cities have such an abundance of land area filled with undesirable areas. If only Chicago and Philly could be shrunk down to 50 square miles or so, they'd have the same high housing prices as DC and SF.

My response to that was that NYC, in sheer volume, has even more "less desirable" areas than Chicago and Philly. Not every poor neighborhood in NYC has Bed-Stuy's glorious housing stock that's just waiting to be returned to glory by Wall Street investment bankers. So if Chicago and Philly have low prices because they are so big and full of "less desirable" neighborhoods, then why is NYC so expensive considering its even larger with many more less desirable and not too interesting neighborhoods?
Aha, I see. This is a different argument.

Boston and SF are expensive far beyond their municipal boundaries. It isn't like SF would have the same median prices as Chicago if you made it as big as Chicago. So, at face value, it seems to be a non-argument.

Yeah, if you shrunk Chicago boundaries to be those of SF, Chicago would be much more expensive than now. I don't think it would be quite as expensive as SF, but it would be much closer apples-to-apples. The lakefront areas from South Loop up through Lakeview are fairly expensive for anything decent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2017, 02:20 PM
 
2,309 posts, read 1,068,675 times
Reputation: 1616
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
Yeah, agree with this.

Chicago and Philly have very nice, expensive neighborhoods, and the professional-dominated areas tend to be very costly, but they're overall much cheaper because they have large swaths of geography where real estate is worth little.

In contrast, NYC and SF-type places don't really have areas where real estate is worth little. Even the "bad" areas aren't that bad. There are no wasteland, half-abandoned type areas.
OMG, very nice ... and city of Chicago together? I couldn't resist. Philly too. Why you say much else worthless is overkill to lessen. Chicago's North side with downtown? Are basically the size of SF or Boston too. Its no wasteland IMO.

Even great greystones and other formerly upper middle-class neighborhoods are in the hoods today. But they still have value. If gentrification reaches then as in Brooklyn and Queens? THEY SKYROCKET in Chicago perspectives that is.

The Bungalow belt has value and still great quality housing for the masses even today. Now this is MY OPINION .... I see this bungalow belt to 50s versions SUPERIOR to same age Row-housing in other cities. That is subjective to some? But my opinion in preference. I love Chicago's older even Workers Cottage homes too. Quaint for the masses and some quite pricey today....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2017, 02:21 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
27,612 posts, read 24,808,715 times
Reputation: 11185
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
Yeah, if you shrunk Chicago boundaries to be those of SF, Chicago would be much more expensive than now. I don't think it would be quite as expensive as SF, but it would be much closer apples-to-apples. The lakefront areas from South Loop up through Lakeview are fairly expensive for anything decent.
The median home value in San Francisco is $800,000. The median home value in the 60610 zip code (Gold Coast) is $399,700.

Geography certainly plays a role in this disparity, but the quantity of ridiculously high paying jobs in the Bay Area likely plays a much bigger role.

If Silicon Valley relocated to King of Prussia, property values in Center City would quadruple and the gentrified core of the city would probably double in size. There would be no more talk about Philly being cheaper due to an abundance of land and bad neighborhoods.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2017, 02:23 PM
 
7,177 posts, read 3,875,856 times
Reputation: 7537
The main reason is that Chicago is in the Midwest. Philadelphia, however is another issue. It's no less coastal than DC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2017, 02:29 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
27,612 posts, read 24,808,715 times
Reputation: 11185
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post
The main reason is that Chicago is in the Midwest. Philadelphia, however is another issue. It's no less coastal than DC.
If Silicon Valley relocated to Chicago, it wouldn't be "cheap" any longer. The location is not so much the issue as it is the economy.

I don't believe SF has always been as expensive as it currently is. It was probably pricier than most places, but it didn't get ridiculous until the tech boom. If SF had Baltimore's or Philly's economy, its housing prices would probably drop by at least 50%
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2017, 02:30 PM
 
211 posts, read 315,929 times
Reputation: 242
LOL, there is NOLA again, usual talking points. NYC is the greatest city in the world argument over and over

You know what, right now, he is probably correct. I have seen NYC since the 60s and trust me it has gone through a lot of changes as will changes take place in it and all cities as they usually do.

What NYC is missing right now is creative you and hungry artists that it had back in the day. Why? It has priced them out. Brooklyn had so much creativity and now it is a bunch of millennial trust fund kids.

Everything is relative. In regards to Chicago crime and all crime. crime was much much worse in Chicago and all cities back in 90s. Just look up the stats. Now if you are a tourist or live on the north, near west, northwest, and parts of southwest sides of Chicago you will most likely not see any crime.

It really is how you look at things. Did all the crime just leave NYC with gentrification? Did it disappear in thin air?
Chicago crime is based on the fact that the major projects were torn down, the main gang leaders put in jail, and a whole bunch of losely "unregulated" gangs have branched off and have no leaders and are extremely young adults. It is sad and tragic. This happens in small areas on the south and west sides of the city.

Do these people not matter as much as a Gold coast real estate on par with the most expensive places in the U.S.?

There is just so much, but Chicago is expensive in expensive areas. San Fran and NYC are two of the most expensive areas in the world!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2017, 02:31 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 6,676,246 times
Reputation: 9775
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
The median home value in San Francisco is $800,000. The median home value in the 60610 zip code (Gold Coast) is $399,700.
Yeah, but I wrote apples to apples.

The Gold Coast is mostly small, old apartments. SF has a high proportion of 1-4 family homes. A 1-4 family home in the Gold Coast will cost millions. A small, older apartment in most of SF will cost around 400-500k.

I think apples-to-apples, there would still be a significant difference but not enormous. I actually considered a job in SF not too long ago and I find that the city's real estate, while painfully expensive, is not as crazy as the popular stereotype. $1 million gets you more than where I live in Brownstone Brooklyn.

It's more down the Peninsula, in Silcon Valley, where the real estate is incredible, with crap bungalows in blah suburbs going for millions. I expect something in the middle of SF to be fairly pricey, but living next to WalMart in some bland 50's suburb and paying millions is something else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2017, 02:34 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
27,612 posts, read 24,808,715 times
Reputation: 11185
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
Yeah, but I wrote apples to apples.

The Gold Coast is mostly small, old apartments. SF has a high proportion of 1-4 family homes. A 1-4 family home in the Gold Coast will cost millions. A small, older apartment in most of SF will cost around 400-500k.

I think apples-to-apples, there would still be a significant difference but not enormous. I actually considered a job in SF not too long ago and I find that the city's real estate, while painfully expensive, is not as crazy as the popular stereotype. $1 million gets you more than here in Brownstone Brooklyn.

It's more down the Peninsula, in Silcon Valley, where the real estate is incredible, with crap bungalows in blah suburbs going for millions. I expect something in the middle of SF to be fairly pricey, but living next to WalMart in some bland 50's suburb and paying millions is something else.
I don't know what apples-to-apples would be, but it's telling when a 47 square mile area has a much higher median home value than one of the most desirable zip codes in Chicago. I mean, if I were to cherry-pick, I could probably find a zip in SF with a median home value of $1.4 million. The median for the entire city is already at $800,000 so one probably exists.

I've never lived in the Bay Area, but finding a $400-$500K apartment in SF seems close to impossible. In Hunter's Point, the lowest priced condo is a 1BR/1BA for $648,600.

Last edited by BajanYankee; 07-28-2017 at 02:48 PM..
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