Unlike OTHER markets, Pittsburgh housing market is S-T-A-B-L-E !!!! (California: rent, condos)

[Katarina Witt]

I think, right-here-i-say, that the criteria you listed are similar everywhere. I realize what you are saying about Mt. Leb, and I believe it. But houses that don't sell ususally have something going on with them, most frequently overpriced.

Most new comers to Mt Lebanon are from out of state.

Actually, according to City-Data:
67% of Mount Lebanon residents lived in the same house 5 years ago.
Out of people who lived in different houses, 67% lived in this county.
Out of people who lived in different counties, 35% lived in Pennsylvania.

Just some interesting data, FWIW.

[right-here-i-say]

Originally Posted by pittnurse70

I think, right-here-i-say, that the criteria you listed are similar everywhere. I realize what you are saying about Mt. Leb, and I believe it. But houses that don't sell ususally have something going on with them, most frequently overpriced.



Actually, according to City-Data:
67% of Mount Lebanon residents lived in the same house 5 years ago.
Out of people who lived in different houses, 67% lived in this county.
Out of people who lived in different counties, 35% lived in Pennsylvania.

Just some interesting data, FWIW.

I really disagree. When we looked at Upper St. Clair, every single house we saw had a nice sized kitchen, 3-4 nice sized bedrooms, a 2 car garage, and a nice yard. Not 1 house we saw in Mt. Lebanon had all of the above.

Of all the people we know who just moved here the past 5 years, all have been from out of state.

[Katarina Witt]

Well, I can accept that there are houses in Mt. Leb. w/kitchens in the basement, and oversize closets for berooms. The housing stock there is getting old. Most houses there were built before 1939. USC is much newer. I do think when a house is not selling, there is something amiss. Every area has houses that cost more, but you get less.

[right-here-i-say]

I guess what I am saying is a house in Mt Lebanon that has features todays buyers want will sell quick, almost regardless of price. There is a home that just went up for sale for $479K and sold quick. Why? It had a nice kitchen, 2 car garage, and was updated.

[CaptainObvious]

I crawl out of the duldrums back onto this forum to say this...

S-T-A-B-L-E translates into C-R-A-P-P-Y

I've always loved the "stable" argument. How are low home prices (due mainly to the fact that it is difficult to get people to move here secondary to the lack of jobs) that stay low a good thing for homeowners? In places where the bubble has burst you saw $200,000 houses grow to $600,000 then drop "all the way down" to $500,000. Some would say it is 16% off its high. I would say it is 150% above its low. Compare that to a similar $200,000 house in Pittsburgh that went all the way up to $250,000 during the boom and then dropped to $215,000 during the bust. You call that stability--I call it horrible appreciation.

it is good to be back. doom and gloom and all.

Cap

[guylocke]

Compare that to a similar $200,000 house in Pittsburgh that went all the way up to $250,000 during the boom and then dropped to $215,000 during the bust. You call that stability--I call it horrible appreciation.

The problem with you're argument is that overall, the housing market in Pittsburgh HASN'T decreased. There IS no depreciation - it still hasn't in all of this housing crisis, we are STILL growing at a slow-and-steady 5%. That's why we were ranked so highly. Why would you want a house worth 200k to be worth 600k in a matter of a few years? You're the one that has to pay taxes on its appraised price. That's why this entire crises even exists in the first place, because of the hyper-inflated markets, and that's why they AREN'T on the list. Cities that have HUGE housing growth and appreciation aren't the ones considered stable, either, that is instability in the opposite direction. Maybe if more markets were like Pittsburgh the US economy wouldn't be dangerously close to slipping into a recession.

In places where the bubble has burst you saw $200,000 houses grow to $600,000 then drop "all the way down" to $500,000

In many areas of the country it is WAY, WAY more serious than that.

[kpoeppel]

Houses don't just magically gain value over time, any more than anything else built by man. Houses gradually fall apart and need constant maintenance like any other durable good. Worse, you have to pay the government annually for the privilege of living in your "own" house, i.e. pay property taxes. You don't have to pay property taxes on your washing machine.

I don't understand this all-pervasive myth that houses can somehow create wealth out of thin air. That mentality drove the housing bubble. But now "reality" is asserting itself and prices are crashing back to the fundamentals of supply and demand.

To be sure, one CAN make money speculating on real-estate just like one can make money speculating on any other commodity. One can also lose money.

If a house is worth more than at some time in the past (assuming no upgrades or additions to the house), it can only be due to an increase in demand over that period. Or, it could be worth more "on paper", simply because the dollar is worth less today than it was in the past. Thus it isn't surprising that house appreciation, on nationwide average, only beats inflation by 1%. It would seem that there are better "investments" than real-estate, on average. Also, one doesn't have to repaint the stock portfolio every year or mow the savings bonds weekly. Better yet, you are only taxed on regular investments if you make money from those investments. With real-estate, you pay property taxes regardless of whether the price goes up or down.

The spectacular appreciation of the last 6 years was from irrational exuberance and mania, not from the fundamentals of supply and demand. Ratios of house prices to rents were (and still are) off the charts in places like CA. The bubble was partially caused, no doubt, by the aforementioned myth that houses magically generate wealth all on their own. On the upside of the bubble, the myth seemed to be very true indeed! It was a classic example of a self-fulfilling prophecy...on a mass scale.

With any speculative bubble, no wealth is actually produced...it is merely transferred from greater fools (who bought in late) to lesser fools (who bought in early). It's essentially a big ponzi scheme. Oh and one more thing...in the housing business, realtors and lending institutions take their percent cut from every transaction. It reminds me of the classic movie "Trading Places" when "Duke & Duke" explain that no matter what happens in the market, they make money. To which Eddie Murphy responds, "sounds to me like y'all are a couple of bookies." So the real-estate business wants to keep the scam going for as long as possible. Now they are "reaping what they have sown."

[str8outtawexford]

Is there anywhere in Pittsburgh where a buyer in 1993 would have seen that sort of equity growth over the same timeframe? I'm genuinely curious; I'd like to buy in that part.[/quote]

Yeah, that is easy: Shadyside

[gswpa]

Originally Posted by CaptainObvious

I crawl out of the duldrums back onto this forum to say this...

S-T-A-B-L-E translates into C-R-A-P-P-Y

I've always loved the "stable" argument. How are low home prices (due mainly to the fact that it is difficult to get people to move here secondary to the lack of jobs) that stay low a good thing for homeowners? In places where the bubble has burst you saw $200,000 houses grow to $600,000 then drop "all the way down" to $500,000. Some would say it is 16% off its high. I would say it is 150% above its low. Compare that to a similar $200,000 house in Pittsburgh that went all the way up to $250,000 during the boom and then dropped to $215,000 during the bust. You call that stability--I call it horrible appreciation.

it is good to be back. doom and gloom and all.

Cap

I agree. Add to that the number of college grads leaving the area.

[guylocke]

I agree. Add to that the number of college grads leaving the area.

Can people be like banned for constantly providing untrue and false information?

No, really, I'm serious.

gswpa, Pittsburgh has a higher graduate/attachment rate than the national average. In fact, our population loss for people in their 20s accounts for less than 1% of population decline.

ONE PERCENT.

You come here and post all this stuff that is just pure and simple garbage. I don't even mean to get nasty, I really don't, but I am so tired of correcting you.