Here's why you are having trouble finding an apartment (Bloomfield: rental market, lofts)

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by wanderlust76

You need to take a drive one day...I've been all over Washington County and there is tons of development. Marcellus shale is just a side note. There are new condos, townhomes, and housing plans all around the Meadowlands, Southpointe, Strabane..list is endless. They just up a new highrise in one of the more rural parts of Washington County on a road you have probably never even been on.
.

Have you been to Donora, Charleroi, Monongahela, Cokesburg, Roscoe, Elco, Coal Center, etc.?

[BrianTH]

People who want but can't find an apartment they can afford in the City will in fact necessarily look elsewhere, but I am not sure many of them are specifically looking at Washington County, which may have its own, mostly separate, market.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by wanderlust76

How do you know why people move? As someone researching apartments the cost of the rent, and the availability is extremely important. The fact is Pittsburgh does have an apartment problem and that directly effects population. Which easily explains about 30 threads that discuss both subjects. The vast majority of people don't make enough to live in a high end apartment so it's a moot point. I find it hard to believe a real estate company like Forest City can only make money off of high end apartment complexes.

If you want to live in a city (or have a close commute), you find a way, even if it means you live in a ratty subdivided unit in an old building rather than getting a nice apartment in a newish complex further out. Look at how people willingly live in South Oakland and pay top dollar for it.

I don't think I've seen one relocation thread here, honestly, that involved someone looking for cheap rent and weighing between inside and outside the city without other issues like children also coming into it. People either tend to like cities or not, and many of the people who like cities, but don't end up relocating here, probably end up in places like Dormont, Edgewood, or other places which might as well be in the city.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by eschaton

If you want to live in a city (or have a close commute), you find a way, even if it means you live in a ratty subdivided unit in an old building rather than getting a nice apartment in a newish complex further out. Look at how people willingly live in South Oakland and pay top dollar for it.

(Raises hand). I'm working two jobs and have a roommate in order to live in this city, and I couldn't be happier. I'd take this lifestyle ANYDAY over my former life in Northern Virginia.

[Perryview22]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

That's okay. Why do we need more housing options when you could just pay $100,000+ for a hideous rowhome in Bloomfield or $700/month for an apartment in Polish Hill that doesn't even have working smoke detectors? Let's just continue to let the city's housing crisis grow into a bubble!

I'm not sure what to think about the video. The underlying economics of the issue is certainly a complex analysis. Any attempt for someone like me to sort it out would be purely intuitive.

However, your anecdote about the 100k rowhouse/700 apt is spot on about this area. I was just talking to a family member today about how my search for a home has become a nightmare. I'm close to giving up. The inventory of available homes in my price range is abysmal -suitable homes that is. I look on the Alleg Co. Prop Assessment site and have been stunned at how many homes in this area are on the books as having sold for a buck. That means that there is a very large percentage of legacy housing out there. There is also a lot of housing out there that simply needs to be demo'd. This area is stocked with a lot of shappy row houses and wall-to-wall three story "shacks" with on-street parking -that also is attributable to a different sort of legacy -owing to the milltowns and the land speculators of the 1800's. We have the wealthy landowners who's surnames are stamped all over this area to thank, in part, for that. I just finished reading a biography of one of the most prominent ones.

And some people seem to regard rising rents, just like rising housing prices as an good ecomonic indicator. I totally disagree with that kind of thinking. What little development there is in rental properties, none if it is accessible to somone who wants to have any reasonable amount of discretionary income left over after paying the rent.

[BrianTH]

It is good that demand for apartments in the core area is strong. It is bad that supply isn't keeping up.

[wanderlust76]

Originally Posted by eschaton

If you want to live in a city (or have a close commute), you find a way, even if it means you live in a ratty subdivided unit in an old building rather than getting a nice apartment in a newish complex further out. Look at how people willingly live in South Oakland and pay top dollar for it.

I don't think I've seen one relocation thread here, honestly, that involved someone looking for cheap rent and weighing between inside and outside the city without other issues like children also coming into it. People either tend to like cities or not, and many of the people who like cities, but don't end up relocating here, probably end up in places like Dormont, Edgewood, or other places which might as well be in the city.

You're talking about demand which isn't the main crux of the discussion...we've already established that the demand is there. The question is why wouldn't supply catch up with demand since it's logical. Noone said anything about cheap rent but I think most will agree high end is a small market. Real estate companies are building thousands and thousands of new units in Seattle right now. In the end it looks like Pittsburgh is becoming more like Columbus with a lot of urban sprawl. Edit: I agree with one of the previous posters I think about 2 years from now someone at a real estate company is going to get axed for missing a huge opportunity.

[ferraris]

Even if the high end rent market is small, it still has not been fully tapped yet as evidenced by all of the new market-rate developments in the urban core. I don't blame developers for chasing the most lucrative markets. It's possible that even after the high end market is tapped out that we still won't see middle and lower end development in the urban core, due to the cost of land and renovation/building new.

I think much of the non-high end growth in the urban core will have to come from either expanding the core (still in the city, but outside of the east end), or from large groups of individuals buying vacant properties or slumlord properties in the non-desirable east end neighborhoods. It's a much different game than it was 10 years ago.

[JoeP]

the area - city or otherwise is lacking in newer housing stock, whether it be rental or not

[BrianTH]

The apartment situation is attracting investor attention:

Pittsburgh

I find this sentiment a bit frustrating:

“One problem in Pittsburgh is it does not have enough (apartment) product for investors who normally like apartments that are less than 10 years old and have from 200 to 300 units,” said Greg Willett, vice president of MPF Research, a division of RealPage Inc., an apartment research firm in Dallas. . . . Many developers are interested in building apartments in the Pittsburgh region, but often can’t find adequate land, he said.

The North Shore, the Strip, the Lower Hill, Station Square, even Downtown itself . . . it seems to me like there are a lot of large parcels in ideal locations for new apartments, so what's the hold up?