Looks like the downtown condo market demand is pretty healthy (Pittsburgh: rental, house)

[tyovan4]

Originally Posted by gg

We need to build and house people with money in the city. Forget about the welfare crowd, they are not going to help build our city great with good infrastructure and really better everything. The welfare folks can move to outer areas because they are not really productive and are a drain. We need less poverty in the city limits because look at the shape of those schools and streets. Goodness, we need money to fix that mess, not handouts to those that will never pay anything back ever.

My issue is that the City is bending over backwards to accommodate the people with money. And they're also bending over backwards to accommodate the people with no money.

But by doing this, they're completely bending over the working/middle class - who are taking it from both ends.

[Copanut]

Originally Posted by tyovan4

My issue is that the City is bending over backwards to accommodate the people with money. And they're also bending over backwards to accommodate the people with no money.

But by doing this, they're completely bending over the working/middle class - who are taking it from both ends.

Copy that.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by tyovan4

My issue is that the City is bending over backwards to accommodate the people with money. And they're also bending over backwards to accommodate the people with no money.

But by doing this, they're completely bending over the working/middle class - who are taking it from both ends.

Could you please point out to me a city that is accommodating the middle class?

[Copanut]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Could you please point out to me a city that is accommodating the middle class?

There aren't any, that's the point, IMHO. Subsidized housing for the poor, million dollar grants for the rich, just another day.

[_Buster]

Originally Posted by tyovan4

My issue is that the City is bending over backwards to accommodate the people with money. And they're also bending over backwards to accommodate the people with no money.

But by doing this, they're completely bending over the working/middle class - who are taking it from both ends.

True. It is the same with the stadium-building shakedowns too. All it really does in the end is increase the income of the already rich.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Copanut

There aren't any, that's the point, IMHO. Subsidized housing for the poor, million dollar grants for the rich, just another day.

Indeed, which is why it's kind of silly to criticize Pittsburgh for a national trend.

The rich (which also includes the upper-middle class) get new construction housing because it's very profitable to build it. The poor get subsidized housing because it's completely impossible for the market to provide housing for low-income people without losing money.

As for the rest of us, how do we afford housing? Depreciation. Basically in a few decades the "luxury apartments" become worn and dated looking, hence affordable. The same happens with single-family houses, as many of the choice suburbs of 50 years ago are semi-downscale today.

Of course, this presupposes that a metro area builds enough housing to accommodate demand. In large portions of the country, this isn't the case (mostly due to zoning restrictions) which is why somewhere like San Francisco is ridiculously expensive. But in the Pittsburgh area, where the population is stagnant or declining slightly, it's not really a concern at all yet.

[tyovan4]

Originally Posted by eschaton

As for the rest of us, how do we afford housing? Depreciation. Basically in a few decades the "luxury apartments" become worn and dated looking, hence affordable. The same happens with single-family houses, as many of the choice suburbs of 50 years ago are semi-downscale today.

The irony of this topic always makes me giggle.
I'm one of the few conservative-leaning folks here, and on this topic I'm arguing for the working class and against the wealthy.

Whereas you (who are rather left-wing if I recall correctly) are arguing for what is basically trickle-down economics.

It's a bit ironic to me

[xdv8]

Originally Posted by tyovan4

The irony of this topic always makes me giggle.
I'm one of the few conservative-leaning folks here, and on this topic I'm arguing for the working class and against the wealthy.

Whereas you (who are rather left-wing if I recall correctly) are arguing for what is basically trickle-down economics.

It's a bit ironic to me

The majority of this forum's active users are conservatives and that is the main reason why the forum isn't more popular in Pittsburgh.

[Copanut]

Originally Posted by xdv8

The majority of this forum's active users are conservatives and that is the main reason why the forum isn't more popular in Pittsburgh.

It always slows down when the Steelers start training camp.

[gg]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Could you please point out to me a city that is accommodating the middle class?

Geez, my posts last night weren't the greatest. I fully agree with your point. At $450K min for a condo that would be upper middle. The city really could use properties around the $200K-250K mark. The middle does get screwed the most on all fronts. College debt, housing and the list goes on. They are sort of the meat and potatoes for the leeches of our society, since they can swat them around not only with their purchases, but BOOM they can keep them in debt for life because they qualify for debt and can stay afloat.

Maybe in this case I could change my mind due to your one sentence post. Grant money would be better served more affordable housing, but not cheap. We still do need a lower poverty percentage in the city limits to help with better infrastructure and schools and to help the city along.

Cheers.