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.
There are a number of SFH in Speer listed for $900K+. It appears that homes in this area are anywhere from 50-100% more expensive than Denver's average. That alone disqualifies it as "average".
I'm not sure a 1920s-era streetcar suburb can pass as average or typical in a city in which 79% of the housing stock was built postwar. It's clearly an outlier and not typical of the housing stock.
If this is what the majority of average middle-class housing stock looks like, then yes.
I get what you are saying, but I think that different people are going to define nice, average, and rough differently. The OP doesn't mention anything about age of housing stock, so that is something that you alone decided is important to the definition of average. So you have your way of defining things, but I don't think it is any better than the way the majority of other posters have decided to define it.
It seems most people are posting for their city proper, and not their metro (the question is worded city, not metro), so that alone is going to make a difference if you are comparing to the entire metro, since the central cities are often very different from the metro in age of housing stock, housing values, crime levels, education, etc. In some metros, the central city is wealthier and much more expensive than the metro at large (Most of the West Coast Cities). In those cities, the average city neighborhood is going to be well above the metro average in price. In some cities, the majority of the central city is a bad neighborhood (several Rust Belt cities). In other areas, the central city has broad boundries, and better reflects the metro at large (several Sun Belt cities). Finally, there are several cities where the wealthiest people and the poorest people tend to live in the central city, and the central city lacks many middle class people, while the suburbs lack poor people and the very wealthy.
So, a city like Detroit, that is probably at least 75% rough areas, one way of looking at the average is that the average neighborhood in the city is a rough neighborhood. Another way would be to say which neighborhoods would your average college educated professional live in, vs which neighborhoods would poor or blue collar folks live in, vs which neighborhoods would the wealthy trust fund people live in (might not be many of those in Detroit proper).
Many of Chicago's bad areas look nice on street view. You can see the decay (vacant lots, loitering and a few abandoned buildings) but the foliage, stately architecture, wrought iron fences and narrow clean streets always look nicer than what I imagine it would be. The commercial strips look worse than residential areas.
I get what you are saying, but I think that different people are going to define nice, average, and rough differently. The OP doesn't mention anything about age of housing stock, so that is something that you alone decided is important to the definition of average. So you have your way of defining things, but I don't think it is any better than the way the majority of other posters have decided to define it.
It seems most people are posting for their city proper, and not their metro (the question is worded city, not metro), so that alone is going to make a difference if you are comparing to the entire metro, since the central cities are often very different from the metro in age of housing stock, housing values, crime levels, education, etc. In some metros, the central city is wealthier and much more expensive than the metro at large (Most of the West Coast Cities). In those cities, the average city neighborhood is going to be well above the metro average in price. In some cities, the majority of the central city is a bad neighborhood (several Rust Belt cities). In other areas, the central city has broad boundries, and better reflects the metro at large (several Sun Belt cities). Finally, there are several cities where the wealthiest people and the poorest people tend to live in the central city, and the central city lacks many middle class people, while the suburbs lack poor people and the very wealthy.
So, a city like Detroit, that is probably at least 75% rough areas, one way of looking at the average is that the average neighborhood in the city is a rough neighborhood. Another way would be to say which neighborhoods would your average college educated professional live in, vs which neighborhoods would poor or blue collar folks live in, vs which neighborhoods would the wealthy trust fund people live in (might not be many of those in Detroit proper).
Indian Village, Palmer Woods, University District, Sherwood Forest, East English Village, West Village, the Grandmont-Rosedale area, Boston-Edison and Downtown would be the likely choices.
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.
