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.
Most of the cities seem to have a blighted urban core and sprawling suburbs. I'm guessing that a good deal of the available homes are cheap homes in areas few people want to live. Drives down the average and makes the metro seem somewhat more affordable than picky home buyers actually experience.
Interesting view if one hasn't visited those cities and relies on perception value. Outside of Hartford, Birmingham and Memphis (personally unsure of those three) the rest have a substantial number of desirable core neighborhoods that continue to appreciate in value, along with other neighborhoods transitioning to similar levels. The trend in recent years has involved fairly rapid deterioration of inner ring suburbs (similar to 70s "white flight") to outer ring suburbs or rebuilding inner city neighborhoods where most of the sweat equity is to be had.
Metros like St. Louis, Cleveland, Detroit still have terribly blighted areas that nobody reading Forbes is going to move to.
And neighborhoods where they would, you're using a broad brush to paint the entire city something it isn't. Some say the entire city of Syracuse is a depressed dump. Would you refer to that as accurate?
And neighborhoods where they would, you're using a broad brush to paint the entire city something it isn't. Some say the entire city of Syracuse is a depressed dump. Would you refer to that as accurate?
No and I was thinking the same thing in regards to your previous post. While there are undesirable neighborhoods within those cities, there are still quite a few desirable neighborhoods within those cities. Basically, give or take, they are like most American cities.
And neighborhoods where they would, you're using a broad brush to paint the entire city something it isn't. Some say the entire city of Syracuse is a depressed dump. Would you refer to that as accurate?
Most of Syracuse proper is blighted and you can buy most city houses for a song. The suburbs are nice and relatively cheap. The blighted areas drive the average metro price even lower, even though few people with two dimes to rub together would live there.
People in the Syracuse area have always been under the mistaken impression that the area's "affordability" would lead to a population spike. Hasn't worked out so far.
Not surprised to see Hartford on here though the city of Hartford is poor, many people forget to realize that its suburbs are very affluent. I believe the Hartford area is one of the wealthiest metropolitan areas in the country. Unfortunately over the past few decades I've noticed the COL to climb a little bit. CT introduced income tax in the early 90's and property taxes and sales tax have skyrocketed....yet wages are nearly unchanged.
Most of Syracuse proper is blighted and you can buy most city houses for a song. The suburbs are nice and relatively cheap. The blighted areas drive the average metro price even lower, even though few people with two dimes to rub together would live there.
People in the Syracuse area have always been under the mistaken impression that the area's "affordability" would lead to a population spike. Hasn't worked out so far.
I don't think people in the area are under that impression in regards to the affordability, eventhough the metro has actually had slight population growth in recent years.
It is a city where Downtown, the University area and the outer neighborhoods are at least solid to very nice, while the inner neighborhoods are more blighted. With the latter, it depends on the side of town in terms of area/severity. Much/most of the East Side rivals many suburban areas in terms of income and home prices, while Eastwood(essentially the NE corner of the city), the Court-Woodlawn area(N Side), Sedgwick(N Side), Tipperary Hill(W Side), Strathmore(SW Corner), Winkworth(SW Corner into Onondaga), Elmwood up the hill(SW Corner), South Valley/southof Seneca Turnpike(S Side) and Lincoln Hill north of the park(N/NE Side) are some of the outer neighborhoods that come to mind. There's also some areas that have seen some gentrification/revitalization like parts of the Near(inner) West Side, the Park Ave neighborhood between Downtown and Geddes Street and the Hawley-Green neighborhood just N/NE of Downtown and the University.
You can still find affordable suburban homes in many solid to nice older areas. So, the median home price isn't driven by cheap urban homes, as that could be the case for just about any city due to blighted/bad neighborhoods.
Not surprised to see Hartford on here though the city of Hartford is poor, many people forget to realize that its suburbs are very affluent. I believe the Hartford area is one of the wealthiest metropolitan areas in the country. Unfortunately over the past few decades I've noticed the COL to climb a little bit. CT introduced income tax in the early 90's and property taxes and sales tax have skyrocketed....yet wages are nearly unchanged.
Does Hartford have any desirable or at least solid urban neighborhoods.
DFW is the indoor capital of America. More strip malls and chain restaurants than you can shake a stick at. Scenic beauty? Almost non-existent. It's flat, it's humid, and it's hotter than hell from mid-June til mid-September.
There's simply nothing spectacular about the Metroplex. It's a job hub with cheap houses, plenty of shopping, and decent food. That's about it. I've said before it's like Omaha on steroids - except, ironically, Omaha is hillier.
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.