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.
Vegas - Yes. Cleveland or Pittsburgh? No. The reason being that of the three, only Vegas had huge gains in the real estate maket. The other two, their real estate never took that jump. The big housing swing that happened in Florida, Arizona and Nevada, never happened in Ohio or Pennsylvania.
People are not rushing to move to places like Pittsburgh or Cleveland, so their real estate is just as steady stream of new home buyers and move up buyers who already live in the area. Pretty much just local buyers. So it's a "constant." YKWIM?
The big difference between Phoenix and older, smaller cities on the east and west coasts is that those older cities have far less room to grow, and have well-established cores with lots of employment opportunities & good public transportation. Not so much Cleveland and Pittsburgh, but cities like Boston, New York, Philly, San Fran, and Chicago all for sure are somewhat immune to the fickle run-ups and down cycles of a boomtown like Phoenix.
In other words, those cities built up- not out- a long time ago, and they have historically been, and will continue to be, desirable places to live. They are hubs for lots of other financial and technical companies, and they certainly don't rely on the real estate or construction markets to anchor their economies. There is a professor of economics at Columbia, forget his name, who wrote an article in Money magazine not long ago in which he designated what he called "superstar" cities- places which are going to continue to be essentially bulletproof urban investment locales, because they just always have been. For the past 60 years, these "superstar" cities have always gained in value steadily, whether in small or large amounts, no matter what the rest of the national housing market or economy is doing.
The big difference between Phoenix and older, smaller cities on the east and west coasts is that those older cities have far less room to grow, and have well-established cores with lots of employment opportunities & good public transportation. Not so much Cleveland and Pittsburgh, but cities like Boston, New York, Philly, San Fran, and Chicago all for sure are somewhat immune to the fickle run-ups and down cycles of a boomtown like Phoenix.
In other words, those cities built up- not out- a long time ago, and they have historically been, and will continue to be, desirable places to live. They are hubs for lots of other financial and technical companies, and they certainly don't rely on the real estate or construction markets to anchor their economies. There is a professor of economics at Columbia, forget his name, who wrote an article in Money magazine not long ago in which he designated what he called "superstar" cities- places which are going to continue to be essentially bulletproof urban investment locales, because they just always have been. For the past 60 years, these "superstar" cities have always gained in value steadily, whether in small or large amounts, no matter what the rest of the national housing market or economy is doing.
So. we agree right? You are right in saying that neither Cleveland nor Pittsburgh that inner core as the larger cities such as Boston, NYC, Chicago. I guess I was trying to say the same thing basically. Because there are areas of the country that never really "took off" in the real estate market, they've just been chugging along at a normal pace.
The big difference between Phoenix and older, smaller cities on the east and west coasts is that those older cities have far less room to grow, and have well-established cores with lots of employment opportunities & good public transportation. Not so much Cleveland and Pittsburgh, but cities like Boston, New York, Philly, San Fran, and Chicago all for sure are somewhat immune to the fickle run-ups and down cycles of a boomtown like Phoenix.
In other words, those cities built up- not out- a long time ago, and they have historically been, and will continue to be, desirable places to live. They are hubs for lots of other financial and technical companies, and they certainly don't rely on the real estate or construction markets to anchor their economies. There is a professor of economics at Columbia, forget his name, who wrote an article in Money magazine not long ago in which he designated what he called "superstar" cities- places which are going to continue to be essentially bulletproof urban investment locales, because they just always have been. For the past 60 years, these "superstar" cities have always gained in value steadily, whether in small or large amounts, no matter what the rest of the national housing market or economy is doing.
IMHO: any area (including most of Arizona at the moment) that prices its police officers, firefighters, nurses and teachers out of living less than 30 miles away (through traffic) deserves what its gets------including a real estate implosion.
I don't think it will ever happen. Definitly, not 40%. Phoenix doesn't even make the top 50 expensive places to live. For people coming from other places, prices for a metro area our size are still good. We are never going to see the appreciation gains of 04-05. Those were not realistic and due mostly to investors. Now is a good time to buy. There are lots of good deals out there and many homes to choose from. There are still plenty of mortgage options out there and there is also alot of bond programs for first time homebuyers. The only people priced out of getting a mortgage now are people that should not have been buying homes in the first place. If you are palnning to stay in one place for at least 3-5 yrs. then you should consider buying. Buying is not for everyone but if you are considering being a homeowner, there is no reason to wait. Things could go up after the 1st of the year when we get tons of tourists for Super Bowl and Spring Training. Lots of people coming to visit aren't exposed to all the negative media hype about the bubble and will decide to buy here. Do you think all the people who bought in 04-05 could predict things were going to go down? There is no way to tell what is going to happen. However, people waiting on the sidelines trying to time the market are just going to hurt things instead of helping them get better.
IMHO: any area (including most of Arizona at the moment) that prices its police officers, firefighters, nurses and teachers out of living less than 30 miles away (through traffic) deserves what its gets------including a real estate implosion.
These occupations are not priced out of the market. And who lives 30 minutes from work around here anymore. It has taken two incomes or someone willing to make sacrifices in other areas to own a home for as long as I remember. A couple of typical incomes for the occupations can easily afford the median priced home. Much of the problem is that the spoiled children of the baby boomers want everything their parents had and they want it NOW. A 1000 sf starter home is not enough - gotta have a 3500sf or greater McMansion in a tony neighborhood. You can't even find a 1000 sf new home anymore for lack of demand. They can't drive a used car, they need a new SUV or a BMW. Picnics in the park and vacations near home are not good enough for them; they have to have cruises and European vacations. I know so many of my nieces and nephews that are up to their eyeballs in debt or have ruined credit from trying to borrow themselves a lifestyle that it took their parents 30 - 40 years to achieve.
The big difference between Phoenix and older, smaller cities on the east and west coasts is that those older cities have far less room to grow, and have well-established cores with lots of employment opportunities & good public transportation. Not so much Cleveland and Pittsburgh, but cities like Boston, New York, Philly, San Fran, and Chicago all for sure are somewhat immune to the fickle run-ups and down cycles of a boomtown like Phoenix.
In other words, those cities built up- not out- a long time ago, and they have historically been, and will continue to be, desirable places to live. They are hubs for lots of other financial and technical companies, and they certainly don't rely on the real estate or construction markets to anchor their economies. There is a professor of economics at Columbia, forget his name, who wrote an article in Money magazine not long ago in which he designated what he called "superstar" cities- places which are going to continue to be essentially bulletproof urban investment locales, because they just always have been. For the past 60 years, these "superstar" cities have always gained in value steadily, whether in small or large amounts, no matter what the rest of the national housing market or economy is doing.
Where do you come up with this stuff? All of the cities mentioned except SF have LOST significant population in the last decades. Philly, of all places, is a dump people can't seem to get out of fast enough. In many cases, the loss has been to their own burbs, but the message is clear. Most people do not want to live in congested, crime-ridden, run-down urban cores. The Phoenix urban village concept with clustered homes, employment and amenities in a sub-urban setting is what people want. The future is places like Verrado and Vistancia in Arizona and similar communities throughout the country. Just look at which way the moving vans are going. Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, Orlando, Jacksonville, Charlotte, Atlanta, and even Los Angeles are not "boomtowns" that are going to disappear or fade in the next decades. These sun-kissed places are going to become the new power cities of the US while the horse-and-buggy cities of the east shed population and influence to these sunbelt "Supercities".
Last edited by Ponderosa; 10-05-2007 at 07:36 AM..
These occupations are not priced out of the market. And who lives 30 minutes from work around here anymore. It has taken two incomes or someone willing to make sacrifices in other areas to own a home for as long as I remember. A couple of typical incomes for the occupations can easily afford the median priced home. Much of the problem is that the spoiled children of the baby boomers want everything their parents had and they want it NOW. A 1000 sf starter home is not enough - gotta have a 3500sf or greater McMansion in a tony neighborhood. You can't even find a 1000 sf new home anymore for lack of demand. They can't drive a used car, they need a new SUV or a BMW. Picnics in the park and vacations near home are not good enough for them; they have to have cruises and European vacations. I know so many of my nieces and nephews that are up to their eyeballs in debt or have ruined credit from trying to borrow themselves a lifestyle that it took their parents 30 - 40 years to achieve.
I totally agree. Plus, if you look at the salaries of the occupations that were stated, they all have great salaries! Nurses? Please! They make GREAT money. Cops start at $40k. It does take 2 incomes, or maybe 1.5 incomes depending on how much they make. Two good incomes can easily buy you a nice home, in a good area. I agree with azsundevil as well, that we are not that expensive compared to other large cities. We have some room to grow with home values.
Where do you come up with this stuff? All of the cities mentioned except SF have LOST significant population in the last decades. Philly, of all places, is a dump people can't seem to get out of fast enough. In many cases, the loss has been to their own burbs, but the message is clear. Most people do not want to live in congested, crime-ridden, run-down urban cores. The Phoenix urban village concept with clustered homes, employment and amenities in a sub-urban setting is what people want. The future is places like Verrado and Vistancia in Arizona and similar communities throughout the country. Just look at which way the moving vans are going. Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, Orlando, Jacksonville, Charlotte, Atlanta, and even Los Angeles are not "boomtowns" that are going to disappear or fade in the next decades. These sun-kissed places are going to become the new power cities of the US while the horse-and-buggy cities of the east shed population and influence to these sunbelt "Supercities".
Do you really think that these sprawlbelt cities are always going to be booming and such lovely places that will always keep growing and never start to have problems? Phoenix's crime is already getting out of hand, just as bad as those cities in the east you mention. Cities like Boston, N.Y., Washington are not losing population. The other cities in the east are expected to grow and are starting to bottom out right now. I guarantee you in about 4 decades from now people will be fleeing the cities everybody is going to right now because it they will be full of congestion, crime, and run down neighborhoods. While the east will look like a great place to live again with their historic neighborhoods revitalized, good public transportation, and so on.
Also, have you ever been to Philly's center core? Center city is far from a dump, and is one of the most beautiful urban areas this country has to offer. Maybe you like your urban areas filled with starbucks, walmarts, and other strip malls, but most Americans like their cities "real".
I just looked at this site....too bad we cant look into this...we have to be in maricopa county and those are in pinal county. It looks similar to something I saw on the news in Florida a maybe one or two months ago. A home seller or sellers auctioned off homes for much less than they were being sold for a year ago. Current home owners were protesting as the auction was going on because they paid $300K+ and people were getting the house next door to them for $120K. So I dont know what the scene will be like at that auction but it could be similar to what i saw on the news. sheesh there are houses over 3000 sq ft with a $139K starting bid....wow.
gregandvicky.....after reading several posts by you and getting and understanding of your situation this may be perfect for you. Are you still in texas or can you go out to view houses in those two areas?
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.
Cleveland or Pittsburgh? No. 
The reason being that of the three, only Vegas had huge gains in the real estate maket. 
The other two, their real estate never took that jump. The big housing swing that happened in Florida, Arizona and Nevada, never happened in Ohio or Pennsylvania. 
You are right in saying that neither Cleveland nor Pittsburgh that inner core as the larger cities such as Boston, NYC, Chicago. I guess I was trying to say the same thing basically. Because there are areas of the country that never really "took off" in the real estate market, they've just been chugging along at a normal pace.
