Why is the rent in undesirable neighborhoods and subburbs so high? (Pittsburgh: apartment, houses)

[gladhands]

I read this post as "why isn't it 1992?"
Pittsburgh is so much cheaper than any comparable city, it's insane. If you want to pick a fight in this area, target wages. Start with the Fight for Fifteen. It's a movement, join it.

[stburr91]

People need to remember that a substantial percentage of the tax burden is on property owners, so rents are going to reflect that. I think most people may be a little shock at the taxes on these properties in the "bad neighborhoods".

[gladhands]

I wonder if people realize, that when they complain about Pittsburgh rents, which are still cheaper than most comparable cities, theyre tacitly implying that Pittsburgh isn't somewhere worth living. As an excercise, choose three cities you consider to have the same level of desirability as Pittsburgh and compare housing costs. You will find Pittsburgh compares favorably.

This is what Blackbeauty212 means when she talks about yinzers and yinzerism. Pittsburgh is no longer a depressed Steeletown the people are exiting in droves. You can't continue to expect it to be priced as such. It's still a bargain, in the grand scheme of things. I'd hate to be the love it or leave it guy, but post like this so very little perspective on the cost-of-living and or midsize American cities. If you're unsatisfied with the Pittsburgh offers you should take a look at what it's like outside of this region. I do, however, admit that complaints about the appearance and condition of much of Pittsburgh's rental housing stock are valid.

[theta_sigma]

Property tax millage rates are the same whether you live in Carrick or Point Breeze. Even for a house valued at only $69k, that's $130/month just in taxes that the owner pays. Add homeowners insurance (which is more for a home that is not owner occupied) and you're getting over $200/month even if you paid cash on the house and own it outright. If you have a mortgage on it, add on another couple hundred a month to pay that. And, as a landlord, you have an obligation to fix whatever breaks in the house in a timely manner. So you'd better be putting a couple hundred a month in a savings account for when the furnace breaks in the middle of January, or local kids break a window, or the toilet starts leaking. It doesn't matter if you're in a wealthy or poor neighborhood, these are fixed costs. A furnace doesn't cost less to install just because you're in McKee's Rocks.

The problem here is income inequality and lack of wage growth. Fixed costs associated with owning and renting out a home don't change that much based on location. Tenants should be earning a living wage that allows them to afford the rent.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by gladhands

I read this post as "why isn't it 1992?"
Pittsburgh is so much cheaper than any comparable city, it's insane. If you want to pick a fight in this area, target wages. Start with the Fight for Fifteen. It's a movement, join it.

While I agree that Pittsburgh's rent isn't too high in the grand scheme of things, Pittsburgh isn't so much cheaper than other comparable cities:

Baltimore: $1,440
Philadelphia: $1,200
Milwaukee: $1,150
Buffalo: $1,090
Pittsburgh: $1,030
Rochester: $900
Saint Louis: $750
Cleveland: $710
Cincinnati: $650
Detroit: $600

To be fair, this is a city versus city comparison, not a metro versus metro comparison, which can be distorted because so much of the city rental market is student-based. But even if you look at core counties, Pittsburgh's numbers are still highish. Here's the same list with core counties only (Philly, Baltimore, and Saint Louis excluded, as they are independent cities).

Milwaukee County, WI: $1,200
Erie County, NY: $1,090
Allegheny County, PA: $920
Monroe County, NY: $830
Hamilton County, OH: $650
Cuyahoga County, OH: $640
Wayne County, MI: $630

Pittsburgh is clearly more expensive to rent in than any of the second-tier rust belt cities other than Buffalo and Milwaukee. It remains cheaper than even the grittiest cities in the Northeast corridor, however, so if you consider those cities to be more our peers, than we aren't really that expensive.

Of course, part of the reason why it's so cheap to live in Cleveland and Detroit is those cities are doing much worse than we are right now. When the population is declining at that fast of a clip, there are always vacant apartments to go around.

[Paul2421]

Originally Posted by eschaton

While I agree that Pittsburgh's rent isn't too high in the grand scheme of things, Pittsburgh isn't so much cheaper than other comparable cities:

Baltimore: $1,440
Philadelphia: $1,200
Milwaukee: $1,150
Buffalo: $1,090
Pittsburgh: $1,030
Rochester: $900
Saint Louis: $750
Cleveland: $710
Cincinnati: $650
Detroit: $600

To be fair, this is a city versus city comparison, not a metro versus metro comparison, which can be distorted because so much of the city rental market is student-based. But even if you look at core counties, Pittsburgh's numbers are still highish. Here's the same list with core counties only (Philly, Baltimore, and Saint Louis excluded, as they are independent cities).

Milwaukee County, WI: $1,200
Erie County, NY: $1,090
Allegheny County, PA: $920
Monroe County, NY: $830
Hamilton County, OH: $650
Cuyahoga County, OH: $640
Wayne County, MI: $630

Pittsburgh is clearly more expensive to rent in than any of the second-tier rust belt cities other than Buffalo and Milwaukee. It remains cheaper than even the grittiest cities in the Northeast corridor, however, so if you consider those cities to be more our peers, than we aren't really that expensive.

Of course, part of the reason why it's so cheap to live in Cleveland and Detroit is those cities are doing much worse than we are right now. When the population is declining at that fast of a clip, there are always vacant apartments to go around.

Great statistics. I don't think that is a bad thing. Pittsburgh isn't as expensive as the northeast, but isn't as cheap as the midwest. Makes sense.

[speagles84]

Originally Posted by Paul2421

Great statistics. I don't think that is a bad thing. Pittsburgh isn't as expensive as the northeast, but isn't as cheap as the midwest. Makes sense.

Yup, exactly.

Good price comparison eschaton.

I am suprised Buffalo is higher though.

[lprmesia]

Where are you pulling the source data from? I'd love to see these same cities in 2005 compared to 2015.

I moved to Pittsburgh in 2006 from Toledo - and rent was cheaper in Pittsburgh than Toledo by a little bit. Now they're not even close. Toledo was bad before I left (which is part of the reason I left), but I'm wondering if over the course of a decade instead of year over year, if a lot of the other cities in the Midwest stagnated entirely while Pittsburgh continued to rise. I think it would tell an interesting story.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by lprmesia

Where are you pulling the source data from? I'd love to see these same cities in 2005 compared to 2015.

I moved to Pittsburgh in 2006 from Toledo - and rent was cheaper in Pittsburgh than Toledo by a little bit. Now they're not even close. Toledo was bad before I left (which is part of the reason I left), but I'm wondering if over the course of a decade instead of year over year, if a lot of the other cities in the Midwest stagnated entirely while Pittsburgh continued to rise. I think it would tell an interesting story.

I posted a link to the source website in my first reply in this thread.

Toledo's rents are now $510 a month for a one-bedroom.

[ferraris]

Originally Posted by lprmesia

Where are you pulling the source data from? I'd love to see these same cities in 2005 compared to 2015.

I moved to Pittsburgh in 2006 from Toledo - and rent was cheaper in Pittsburgh than Toledo by a little bit. Now they're not even close. Toledo was bad before I left (which is part of the reason I left), but I'm wondering if over the course of a decade instead of year over year, if a lot of the other cities in the Midwest stagnated entirely while Pittsburgh continued to rise. I think it would tell an interesting story.

I moved here in 2005 from Toledo and we're actually considering the possibility of moving back in a year or so.

Living in Brighton Heights is starting to feel like I'm not getting too much of the benefit of living in a city of Pittsburgh's size. The good transit access and working in a vibrant downtown area are the only perks I get on a regular basis. The rest of my everyday life is pretty similar to what it would be in a typical Toledo neighborhood -- I still have to drive to do most of my shopping, dining, and entertainment. Sure there's some stuff I walk to, but that's possible in Toledo too. And the Pittsburgh metro is pretty miserable to drive around; traveling around the Toledo area seems like much less of a "trip" even though you could be traveling the same distances. (oh no! I've picked up the "I don't cross rivers or go through tunnels" mentality haven't I!? )

I'm not willing to pay 4-6x more to live in a core neighborhood in Pittsburgh, but I may be willing to pay 2-3x as much to live in the core of Toledo (or less than I pay now to continue living in a Brighton Heights-ish neighborhood). Pittsburgh's amenities beat the pants off of Toledo's, but living in a smaller urban core is starting to seem preferable to living near a larger one.