What don't you like about Pittsburgh? (Beaver Falls, Beaver: home search, buyers, live)

[juliegt]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

And as I have noted here before, I really wonder if this is a sustainable set of circumstances. My friends in places like DC, NYC, or SF who didn't buy their first house several years ago are looking at the prospect of being saddled with huge mortgages just to buy basic homes, often far from their place of employment. If this doesn't change, I don't see how those cities won't eventually experience a huge drain of young professionals looking for more affordable housing (and easily willing to take something like a 6% pay cut to get it).

Prices have fallen pretty dramatically in the SF Bay Area, but we are still pricey compared to the rest of the country. I'll use myself as an example. I live about halfway between SF and San Jose in a 960 sq ft, 2 bdr 1 ba home that needs a ton of work. Because I'm getting divorced I had to get an appraisal of my home a few weeks ago. It was appraised at $475,000. We had refinanced in 2005 and it appraised for $650,000. I know these figures are accurate because the totally refurbished home next door with the exact floor plan as mine sold for $700k two years ago and just sold for $495k last month. I know that a home like mine in Pittsburgh in a similar neighborhood would probably sell for under 100K, certainly no more than $150k.

I read recently that (pre-foreclosure crisis) home prices in the core of the bay area (excluding the outlying suburbs) were approximately 11 times higher than the median income. And Bay Area incomes tend to be higher than the rest of the country! So with the current drop in prices, maybe they'll only be 6 -7 times higher?!

When you live in a place like the SF Bay Area with such high home prices, Pittsburgh seems unreal. Although I know that the taxes there are high and the infrastructure isn't what it could be.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by juliegt

Prices have fallen pretty dramatically in the SF Bay Area, but we are still pricey compared to the rest of the country.

That's the thing: even though prices have come down in some of the areas where the appreciation was really high, they haven't come down enough yet to really close the gap. Of course, maybe that will change.

I read recently that (pre-foreclosure crisis) home prices in the core of the bay area (excluding the outlying suburbs) were approximately 11 times higher than the median income. And Bay Area incomes tend to be higher than the rest of the country! So with the current drop in prices, maybe they'll only be 6 -7 times higher?!

I think that is the best way to approach this with the available statistics (looking at the ratio between median home sales prices and median household incomes). Unfortunately, the stats I have are recent for sales prices (2007), older for income (2000 Census), and I would love suggestions for better income data. So, while these ratios will seem high (because the income data is old), they should still give a sense of how things compare in broad terms.

For example, in 2000 SF had the highest median household income in the country, at about $62,000. Washington DC was next, at about $57,000. Pittsburgh was in fact considerably lower, at about $37,500.

But now look at median home sales prices. In 2007 for existing single-family homes, it was $805K in SF, about a 13:1 ratio compared to 2000 median household income (again, note the high number because of the old income data). Washington was a bargain at $431K, about a 7.5:1 ratio. Pittsburgh was $121K, about a 3.2:1 ratio.

So although this is rough, I think it does show that with price differences that high, any plausible differences in income won't be high enough to even out the situation.

When you live in a place like the SF Bay Area with such high home prices, Pittsburgh seems unreal. Although I know that the taxes there are high and the infrastructure isn't what it could be.

Of course the home prices also factor into the property tax situation. For example, in the 2006 data I have seen, property taxes as a percentage of home value were indeed relatively high in Pittsburgh, and conversely property taxes as a percentage of home value were relatively low in SF. But property taxes as a percentage of median income were higher in SF than Pittsburgh. Why? The far higher home values in SF more than made up for both the higher tax rates and the lower median income in Pittsburgh combined.

Generally, Pittsburgh is just a little bit over average when it comes to property taxes as a percentage of income. And when you factor in the additional costs of a much more expensive home, it is pretty much no contest.

[kpoeppel]

To see if prices are out of whack in a given city, look at two ratios: median house price vs. median income, and median house price vs. median rent.

In San Fran and DC, those ratios are much MUCH higher than in Pittsburgh.

[londonbarcelona]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I am very familiar with what you can get in DC housing market, and also the wages paid. It is true you get paid a bit more in DC than you would in Pittsburgh for a comparable job. What you don't get is a wage three to four times higher, and that is a typical differential in housing prices. Seriously. You can easily spend $600K (or more) in DC on a small house (2 bedroom) in a transitional neighborhood, and in one of the nicest neighborhoods in the NW? Maybe a one bedroom condo, but forget about a house.



When was this? I ask because DC is one of those places that has experienced really high appreciation over just the last few years.



That sounds like a pretty nice suburb, and of course Pittsburgh has some pretty nice suburbs. But of course lots of cities, including Pittsburgh, have not-so-nice suburbs. In fact, I grew up in a perfectly decent middle-class suburb in the Detroit area, but it didn't fit your description.

In general, by definition a suburb is just a residential community on the outskirts of a city that is neither urban nor rural. There is no guarantee the local zoning laws will require sidewalks, encourage mixed use neighborhoods, or so on.



No problem.



Yes. I've lived in Detroit, Connecticut, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Hollidaysburg (PA), and Washington DC. I also have immediate family living in Detroit (father), Denver/Boulder (sister), Portland (OR) (brother), and San Mateo (mother). My immediate inlaws live in Delaware, Denver/Boulder again, Miami, and Sarasota. I have close friends in many more cities who have recently bought homes or are currently looking. We were recently at least considering living in several places, including Chicago, DC, Philly, New York, and Denver, so I looked pretty carefully at what was available.



I am always interested in seeing places, even if I am not in the market, so I would enjoy being shown what you are talking about.



No you didn't. Rather, that was my point about the statistics I am using: to briefly review, the NAR reports statistics about the prices of homes actually sold. So, the only houses which affect those statistics are the ones for which there is a willing buyer. So, any uninhabitable homes in Pittsburgh shouldn't have much of an affect on the statistics, since they are not going to be the homes people are actually buying. The only reason that would not be true is if somehow the inventory of more desirable homes was so low people were being forced to buy these highly undesirable homes, but I see no reason to believe that is happening. But again, that was indeed my point.



And again, my point is that these homes may exist in Pittsburgh, but they shouldn't be dominating the available statistics, since those statistics are about the homes actually being bought.

I lived in Richmond about 8 years ago. I know DC well, but I honestly can't get into another pi**ing contest with you Brian.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by londonbarcelona

I lived in Richmond about 8 years ago. I know DC well, but I honestly can't get into another pi**ing contest with you Brian.

No problem.

I will briefly note the following, however: from the 4th Quarter of 1999 until the 4th Quarter of 2007, home prices in the Pittsburgh MSA went up about 44.7%. Over the same period, home prices in the Washington MSA went up 144%. So, for example, a house in Pittsburgh that cost $200K at the beginning of 2000 might now be about $290K. A house in Washington that cost the same $200K in 2000 might now be about $490K.

Indeed, the only way equivalent homes could be roughly the same price in Pittsburgh and Washington today is if back in 2000, equivalent homes were much more expensive in Pittsburgh than they were in Washington. So, for example, to make the numbers work out, instead of $200K, that home in Pittsburgh must have cost about $340K back in 2000, again while an equivalent home in Washington was only costing $200K at the time.

In short, the radical difference in appreciation rates over the last few years essentially guarantees that today equivalent homes must be much more expensive in Washington than in Pittsburgh. And if they were even somewhat more expensive in Washington back in 2000, they would now be much, much more expensive.

[Katiana]

And personally, I think that the social norm of considering a house "uninhabitable" because it fails to have granite countertops and stainless appliances, neutral designer paint on the walls, wasn't built in the last three years, has un-fashionable types of floor plans and so forth, is one of the primary reasons why we have a mortgage crisis in this country. A house has a kitchen in the basement - OMG, the horror! Come on, that's weird I admit, but it hardly means that a normal person literally couldn't live in the place.

I never used the word "uninhabitable". I'm not sure how "run-down" became translated to imply that I meant "small" and "no granite countertops" and so on. Our first house was 1300 sq ft (measured quite generously); what little counter space it had was formica faux butcher block; and it had a one-car garage, which is kind of inconvenient in CO. By the time we sold it, four of us were living there, giving us 325 sq ft each. That is probably less than many people on this forum have.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Katiana

I never used the word "uninhabitable".

I just wanted to note that "uninhabitable" was indeed londonbarcelona's term (see #219), not yours (I believe your term has been "undesirable").

[Katiana]

The majority of the post I quoted was directly following my own, and I felt in response to mine about the house with the kitchen in the basement. I do feel that is an undesirable trait in a house, considering the homemaker has to spend a lot of time in the kitchen. I would not consider such a house uninhabitable, no.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Katiana

The majority of the post I quoted was directly following my own, and I felt in response to mine about the house with the kitchen in the basement. I do feel that is an undesirable trait in a house, considering the homemaker has to spend a lot of time in the kitchen. I would not consider such a house uninhabitable, no.

What basically happened is that in #219 londonbarcelona used the term "uninhabitable". In #220 I responded to londonbarcelona and also used the term "uninhabitable". In #222 you quoted my passage in which I used the term "uninhabitable", introduced the kitchen story, and substituted your own term "undesirable". In #223, subdivisions, without directly citing londonbarcelona or you, used the term "uninhabitable".

Under the circumstances, I don't think it was unfair for subdivisions to use that term. As I noted, it is true that you did not use that term yourself--but you did quote me repeating the term in response to the person who used it originally.

[londonbarcelona]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

What basically happened is that in #219 londonbarcelona used the term "uninhabitable". In #220 I responded to londonbarcelona and also used the term "uninhabitable". In #222 you quoted my passage in which I used the term "uninhabitable", introduced the kitchen story, and substituted your own term "undesirable". In #223, subdivisions, without directly citing londonbarcelona or you, used the term "uninhabitable".

Under the circumstances, I don't think it was unfair for subdivisions to use that term. As I noted, it is true that you did not use that term yourself--but you did quote me repeating the term in response to the person who used it originally.

LOL.
I seriously need to get a life. I can't keep coming onto City-Data anymore because I do not want to see myself become like "post #229 where so and so said this where upon I then said, "refer to post #223 because so and so said such and such." LOL

WOW.

I'd like to apologize for using a confusing term such as "uninhabitable" because that choice of word did not convey my original thought well at all. I did not mean to imply that Pittsburgh itself was not attractive or habitable, but was actually referring to the ones Katiana described that were originally built for the miners/steel workers. I should have explained myself more thoroughly. I tend to forget that when having a discussion on-line, one must never assume that someone understands your point, because facial expression and tone of voice are absent. I must be one of those people who thinks that just because I know what I am talking about, everyone else does also. Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding that my choice of word started.

All this is so not okay. It's pretty much on the fringe of abnormal. So, I'm going to excuse myself from this party.

You're all definitely pretty cool, unique; and intensely different people. *smile*