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.
Not accusing anyone in this thread, but it's very clear that many folks living in uber-expensive cities like New York or San Francisco feel the need to their justify exorbitant living costs by belittling and being extremely condescending towards less expensive cities, even when it's quite obvious that the vast majority of average, middle-class earners do have a much higher quality-of-life and can actually enjoy urban amenities in cities like Philadelphia and Chicago.
If you want to brag about paying upwards of $1 million dollars to live in a shoebox and becoming "house poor", or live in an extended reality show with 5 complete strangers cramming an apartment, just because said city is considered by some to have more "cachet," have at it. To most people with sound logic and financial savvy, that's considered ridiculous and impractical.
really, n.y.c.'ers are condescending to people from fly over cities? never knew.
Not accusing anyone in this thread, but it's very clear that many folks living in uber-expensive cities like New York or San Francisco feel the need to their justify exorbitant living costs by belittling and being extremely condescending towards less expensive cities, even when it's quite obvious that the vast majority of average, middle-class earners do have a much higher quality-of-life and can actually enjoy urban amenities in cities like Philadelphia and Chicago.
If you want to brag about paying upwards of $1 million dollars to live in a shoebox and becoming "house poor", or live in an extended reality show with 5 complete strangers cramming an apartment, just because said city is considered by some to have more "cachet," have at it. To most people with sound logic and financial savvy, that's considered ridiculous and impractical.
That's not fair. For $1m you can still buy a really nice 1BR here. Maybe even a 2BR!
I'm curious because you speak of New York almost always like we're strictly talking about Manhattan, and the other boroughs are not to be taken into consideration.
Nobody needs parking in Manhattan, but the 1% often do like having their own cars. Parking in Manhattan is still a commodity to be had and it has a presence in newly constructed luxury condos.
Outside of Manhattan, many people still have cars, especially in Queens. Available parking in residences is a hot commodity in many pockets of all of the boroughs where access to the subway is more limited or where driving is more commonplace.
We should probably be specific about what parts of NYC we're talking about.
theres a posting somewhere in cd that ranks the cities as far as fewest vehicle ownership goes. n.y.c was at the top (no surprise). what was surprising was the percentage was something like 60 %.
Parts of Chicago are quite expensive. But the expensive parts of Chicago are still much cheaper than the expensive parts of SF. In SF, you will end up paying 2, 2.5, or maybe even 3 times as much on a per square foot basis.
Parts of Chicago are quite expensive. But the expensive parts of Chicago are still much cheaper than the expensive parts of SF. In SF, you will end up paying 2, 2.5, or maybe even 3 times as much on a per square foot basis.
I don't even agree that parts of Chicago are quite expensive. I will say that the high end in parts of Chicago are quite expensive, but there are no areas where the barrier of entry is too high for two middle-income earners.
I don't even agree that parts of Chicago are quite expensive. I will say that the high end in parts of Chicago are quite expensive, but there are no areas where the barrier of entry is too high for two middle-income earners.
That's a fair assessment. Chicago and Philly both have high end real estate, but there are really no neighborhoods where, say, two young professionals can't buy anything at all.
A 288 sq. ft. studio in Nob Hill, SF sold for $193,724. That's $673 per sq. ft. To get something more livable (around 600 sq. ft.) puts you around $1,100 per sq. ft.
It always seemed common sense to me that landlords and sellers could fetch higher prices in DC, NYC, SF, etc. because there were simply more people with the ability pay higher prices.
I think what we have here is a chicken-egg conundrum. The cost of housing is both two-fold. Yes, the income numbers are higher in the cities you mention, and thus people are capable of spending higher amounts of income on housing, but it's also because they are forced to pay what the market dictates. I think it goes without saying that all buyers/renters, even those with high incomes, would want to pay as little as possible for the type of housing they desire, given the choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
There are dominant high wage industries in these metros (BigLaw and lobbying/Finance and BigLaw/Tech) that exist on a scale that's not present in the Delaware Valley. I don't think there's much more to it than that.
That database is the closest approximation I've seen that ranks metro areas on sector employment, specifically trying to group what is considered "white collar." Philly is one of the few areas exceeding 40% of the workforce. Cities like Boston and San Francisco only have marginally higher white-collar composition, at 45%. The New York area actually doesn't crack 40%.
DC, not shockingly, is only one of five metros (including that little research-dominated burg they call Los Alamos, NM) that just barely cracks 50% of its workforce being considered "white collar." Does having a workforce being comprised, at most, of 10% higher white-collar workers justify twice, or even threes times, the cost of housing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
That's not the only provable thing. It's also very provable that these cities have more high net worth individuals and many more people in high wage industries.
See above re: industry employment.
Also, yes, supply and demand are they only factors that can be most directly related to housing costs. What you bring up are indirect variables.
This is a bit of a non sequitur, but Chicago apartments 10 to prioritize entertainment space; Livingrooms and open kitchens. A Chicago apartment will tend to have smaller bedrooms than a New York, Boston or D.C. apartment of equal square footage
I think what we have here is a chicken-egg conundrum. The cost of housing is both two-fold. Yes, the income numbers are higher in the cities you mention, and thus people are capable of spending that amount of income on housing, but it's also because they are forced to pay what the market dictates. I think it goes without saying that all buyers/renters, even those with high incomes, would want to pay as little as possible for the type of housing they desire, given the choice.
They are forced to pay what the market dictates because there are lots of lots of people earning high salaries that can outbid them for the same property.
Yes, there absolutely are that many people in these cities to drive the prices that high. A "white collar" job doesn't necessarily say much about how much money you are making. A "white collar" worker at a collections agency and a "white collar" worker at Barclays aren't the same thing.
Every major investment bank in the world has a significant presence in Manhattan. Same is true of most law firms. Every major law firm (Vault 100) has a significant presence in DC. That's not true of Philadelphia, which only has a small handful of firms in the V100.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
Also, yes, supply and demand are they only factors that can be most directly related to housing costs. What you bring up are indirect variables.
That's sort of a basic explanation, no? It's a bit intellectually lazy to say that, IMO...almost akin to saying "the free market will work it out." At the most basic level, yes, supply and demand determine price in any market, but there are more complex factors that go into it than just that. As I said earlier, there are metros, including Atlanta, that have housing shortages but do not have the exorbitant housing prices that the DC metro area has. How do you explain that? And if you say that the housing shortage in the DC area is WAY worse than it is in Atlanta, or Miami for that matter (which also has a real housing shortage), then you should provide evidence to substantiate that.
They are forced to pay what the market dictates because there are lots of lots of people earning high salaries that can outbid them for the same property.
Yes, that is true, but "lots and lots" of people don't necessarily have to comprise a large portion of the buyer pool, particularly in a mega-city like New York. It doesn't take long before for billionaires and millionaires making a foothold in the real estate market with their gargantuan condos and apartments (but with relatively few residents) start to starve neighborhood after neighborhood of more modesty-sized and modestly-priced real estate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Yes, there absolutely are that many people in these cities to drive the prices that high. A "white collar" job doesn't necessarily say much about how much money you are making. A "white collar" worker at a collections agency and a "white collar" worker at Barclays aren't the same thing.
Now you're getting into really nuanced perspectives of the workforce, and I actually agree with you.
Again, even looking at actual income levels, the super-higher earners you speak of (e.g., investment bankers, corporate executives) certainly comprise a larger share of residents in these cities, and I think that's what this conversation comes down to. But by no means do these hyper-earning folks comprise a large pool of the population (we'll say the top 15%). They just happen to be very influential pool of buyers on the real estate market for a multitude of reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
That's sort of a basic explanation, no? It's a bit intellectually lazy to say that, IMO...almost akin to saying "the free market will work it out." At the most basic level, yes, supply and demand determine price in any market, but there are more complex factors that go into it than just that.
I've acknowledged that there are multiple and complex factors involved, but as to what is the most correlated with housing prices, it's hard to argue against good ol' supply as being #1.
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.
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.
