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)
 
Old 07-28-2017, 02:37 PM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,327,543 times
Reputation: 3562

Advertisements

Isn't it really about the available housing stock in livable neighborhoods/towns around high paying jobs in urban areas? It doesn't seem all that complicated.

When there are high paying jobs and a desirable urban environment, people buy up the stock. When more high paying jobs locate there, more people want convenient, nice housing in neighborhoods with culture and amenities. When even more high paying jobs show up, people are willing to pay even more and eventually it spreads outward. You make good money, you can raise a family, you want housing.

Philly and Chicago are both desirable, but they have a lot of neighborhoods surrounding their good paying jobs. There are too many good neighborhoods to live in surrounding the good paying jobs for them to go sky-high with cost.

The small land area coastal cities with good paying jobs nearby are a great example of this. But it's also why Miami, New Orleans and many other coastal cities are not super expensive to live in. Not enough high-paying jobs for the housing stock that's available...

EDIT: Cities with great urban neighborhoods with culture, walkability, amenities, etc. go even crazier because so many places in the US have that AND jobs. Think of a place like Houston where there is a strong economy, but housing is not as expensive...certainly not as expensive as if it were land constrained with the urban build of Boston with its jobs located downtown...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-28-2017, 02:40 PM
 
7,699 posts, read 4,554,568 times
Reputation: 8381
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
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%
Well, yeah, Silicon Valley plays a big part, but I think SF was as, if not more expensive than NYC in the early 90s.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2017, 02:50 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,244,373 times
Reputation: 9846
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
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 is already at $800,000 so one probably exists.
And I agree SF is significantly more expensive, even just comparing equivalent geographies.

But you have to take into account the fact that you're comparing somewhat unlike things. Per Census, Chicago has 292,000 units in large apartment buildings (20+ units), almost all located in/near the core. In contrast, SF has only 100,000 such units. So Chicago has roughly 3x the number of such units in an equivalent geography.

In both cities, 1-4 unit housing is much more expensive. You can't find a one-family anywhere in prime Chicago for less than $1 million, same as SF. Also, in SF, there are plenty of small apartments semi-affordable to middle class incomes, same as Chicago. 500k will get you something. So the housing typology distribution plays a role.

I have family in Chicago and a nice SFH in a good neighborhood near the core costs millions. In their area (not the best area, not even close), a nice SFH goes for around $2.5-3 million. Not too many people, not even professionals, can afford that. So, yeah, Chicago is cheap(er), but is not as cheap as popularly imagined.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2017, 02:53 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,252 posts, read 26,220,119 times
Reputation: 11706
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post
Well, yeah, Silicon Valley plays a big part, but I think SF was as, if not more expensive than NYC in the early 90s.
Check this out. Keep in mind this thread was started during the throes of the Great Recession, so prices were deflated then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by clongirl View Post
Yes, it's always been more pricey to live there, but not outrageous. Let me put this in perspective. When my husband and I decided in 1995 to start looking for a house (typical full five ((2 bd,kitchen,living room, dining room)) the prices were around 270+. By the time that 1996 rolled around they had jumped to 350k (sound cheap now days, but back then it was outrageous!). Now the same houses, although falling in price are still around 850K.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImRandy View Post
I remember looking at houses to rent with a friend of mine in 1995 in Daly City. We looked at this very nice 4/2. We thought the rent was a little high and didn't take it. While we were chatting with the landlord he said if he didn't get somebody moved in within the month he was going to put the house on the market for $200K. As we were walking out my friend turned to me and said that the landlord was crazy, at that price you'd never get your money out of it. I completely agreed with him. Boy were we wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bayarea-girl View Post
To add, SF has always been pricey but the surrounding areas were very reasonable. When my husband was growing up in the bay area he said there was a time when he could have bought a home in SF for $20K and that was expensive then. Our friends bought condos for $50-70 in the Lake Merrit, San Leandro, Hayward, Hercules, SF area then they were able to get $400-600K for them 10 years after they bought them. When we were looking for our first home I put an offer for a home in San Leandro for $75K the same year the people who paid cash for the home relisted it for $250K it then went up to $900K over the years (but I think its current value is around $275K).
Has SF Always Been Expensive?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2017, 03:10 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,244,373 times
Reputation: 9846
Here's an example where SF is expensive, but not insanely cartoonish expensive like the stereotype-

Here's a luxury, two bedroom condo in a brand new building in the best neighborhood in SF (Pacific Heights) and with parking included. Over 1,100 square ft. and asking under $1.5. It's been on the market for a while, so maybe you could get it for $1.4 or less.

https://zephyrre.com/properties/CA/S...-Broadway-403/

Is that super-crazy expensive compared to most places? Hell, yeah. But I can't find anything like that here in Park Slope (Brooklyn). 1,100 square ft, parking included, and new construction? LOL, no. In prime areas, try 900 square ft., no parking, old building, and maybe W/D in the basement. That will already cost you well over $1M. And probably coop, not condo, requiring board approval and 50% down. And Park Slope isn't the best neighborhood in NYC, not even close.

Now here's new construction listings in a newer borderline Park Slope condo. Keep in mind this is a far from prime area; in fact many consider this to be the industrial Gowanus neigborhood. You actually get more in Pacific Heights than in a semi-industrial part of Brooklyn-

Luxury Brooklyn Condos for Sale | Baltic - Availability

So is SF very expensive? Yup. Is is insane and unprecdented? Nope. Other areas are as bad, and a few areas are even crazier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2017, 03:10 PM
 
7,699 posts, read 4,554,568 times
Reputation: 8381
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
And I agree SF is significantly more expensive, even just comparing equivalent geographies.

But you have to take into account the fact that you're comparing somewhat unlike things. Per Census, Chicago has 292,000 units in large apartment buildings (20+ units), almost all located in/near the core. In contrast, SF has only 100,000 such units. So Chicago has roughly 3x the number of such units in an equivalent geography.

In both cities, 1-4 unit housing is much more expensive. You can't find a one-family anywhere in prime Chicago for less than $1 million, same as SF. Also, in SF, there are plenty of small apartments semi-affordable to middle class incomes, same as Chicago. 500k will get you something. So the housing typology distribution plays a role.

I have family in Chicago and a nice SFH in a good neighborhood near the core costs millions. In their area (not the best area, not even close), a nice SFH goes for around $2.5-3 million. Not too many people, not even professionals, can afford that. So, yeah, Chicago is cheap(er), but is not as cheap as popularly imagined.
I've shown you again and again that this simply isn't true, but I guess you're going to cling to the subjective "nice" to prove your point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2017, 03:10 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,252 posts, read 26,220,119 times
Reputation: 11706
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
And I agree SF is significantly more expensive, even just comparing equivalent geographies.

But you have to take into account the fact that you're comparing somewhat unlike things. Per Census, Chicago has 292,000 units in large apartment buildings (20+ units), almost all located in/near the core. In contrast, SF has only 100,000 such units. So Chicago has roughly 3x the number of such units in an equivalent geography.
I think the median household income for these zip codes says a lot.

60610 - $75,892
94123 - $124,321

I think it's more the difference in income driving the price disparity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
In both cities, 1-4 unit housing is much more expensive. You can't find a one-family anywhere in prime Chicago for less than $1 million, same as SF. Also, in SF, there are plenty of small apartments semi-affordable to middle class incomes, same as Chicago. 500k will get you something. So the housing typology distribution plays a role.
Not that familiar with either, but where does one find a $500K condo in SF that's not located next to a waste treatment facility? That city seems outrageously expensive even in its most remote and least desirable areas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
I have family in Chicago and a nice SFH in a good neighborhood near the core costs millions. In their area (not the best area, not even close), a nice SFH goes for around $2.5-3 million. Not too many people, not even professionals, can afford that. So, yeah, Chicago is cheap(er), but is not as cheap as popularly imagined.
I think it's important not to get too caught up on the top end real estate. In Center City Philadelphia (and this extends to some of the adjacent areas as well), a nice, SFH can easily push into seven figure territory, but at the same time, you can purchase a condo walking distance from Rittenhouse Square for less than $400,000. I doubt you could find anything walking distance from Union Square in that price range. So while both cities have some expensive real estate, the floor in SF is much higher than it is in Chicago or Philly. You're not even sniffing anything in SF at a similar price point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2017, 03:12 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,244,373 times
Reputation: 9846
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post
I've shown you again and again that this simply isn't true, but I guess you're going to cling to the subjective "nice" to prove your point.
No, you showed us a one bedroom walkup with no parking and claimed high-income families would consider such a housing typology, which is absurd.

Profesionals in the Midwest aren't going to live Hong-Kong style. They need parking (probably 2 spaces), space (min 2,000 sq. ft. if we're talking high income family with kids), elevator if a big building, and probably some outside space. They aren't living in a closet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2017, 03:17 PM
 
7,699 posts, read 4,554,568 times
Reputation: 8381
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
No, you showed us a one bedroom walkup with no parking and claimed high-income families would consider such a housing typology, which is absurd.

Profesionals in the Midwest aren't going to live Hong-Kong style. They need parking (probably 2 spaces), space (min 2,000 sq. ft. if we're talking high income family with kids), elevator if a big building, and probably some outside space. They aren't living in a closet.
Why are you lying? You don't have to lie. We can all see the posts. Just admit that you're wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post
You don't have to lie. I bolded what you actually said, and guess what? It's not true.



I guess you're going to play that silly game where you will deem any Chicago property that doesn't cost millions "garbage" or "undesirable". For those who don't know Chicago, here are some sub-million dollar properties in prime neighborhoods:

https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/34.../home/14113526
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/21.../home/13357135
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/24.../home/13357677
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/16.../home/13346296

All of these would be 4-10 million in NYC. Comparable DC neighborhoods would be 2-4 mil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post
This simply isn't true.

https://www.redfin.com/PA/Philadelph.../home/38812974
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/12.../home/14123770


And there are other desirable areas in both cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2017, 03:28 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,252 posts, read 26,220,119 times
Reputation: 11706
Rent asked (no. of units by city/borough). $3,000 or more.

Manhattan - 7,525 (23.2%)
Los Angeles - 1,723 (4.2%)
San Francisco - 987 (8.5%)
Chicago - 697 (1.4%)
Washington, DC - 638 (5.5%)
Brooklyn - 602 (1.9%)
Boston - 492 (5.1%)
Seattle - 379 (6.2%)
San Jose - 375 (9.1%)
Philadelphia - 374 (1.5%)
Denver - 222 (2.7%)
Oakland - 195 (4.0%)
Minneapolis - 160 (3.4%)
Charlotte - 131 (1.2%)
Miami Beach - 61 (3.2%)
Baltimore - 56 (0.4%)
Atlanta - 20 (0.1%)
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.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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