Why is Pittsburgh so cheap? (Lebanon, Dallas: countertops, new home, income)

[pittsteelerfan]

Originally Posted by creepsinc

You're actually questioning where I lived for 4 years?


One word, genius: Victorian*.




*Yes, I'm aware that "Victorian" refers to an era more than any one style, but the fact that Pittsburgh and S.F. are two of the largest and most well-known Victorian cities in the country renders your argument ridiculous. Pittsburgh is more intact, since many of S.F.'s Victorian "nabes" fell victim to the urban renewal wrecking balls, but Pittsburgh isn't sometimes called "The Poor Man's San Francisco" for nothing.

Pittsburgh is called the "Poor man's SF", cause of all the steep hills and city steps. The houses in both cities differ SO MUCH. By all means, please post some pics in the 'city' limits of SF, that people would think they're located in Pittsburgh. Sure there might be a 'few', like any other city. But show me these nabes that resemble each other.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by pittsteelerfan

You think SF wasn't "expensive" during the "Gold Rush"? How about when they had that big earthquake that devasted like half the city? You think those apt rents, or house's weren't commanding top dollar? SUPPLY and DEMAND! SF was "expensive" long before the "internet boom".

San Fransisco was NOT always been expensive. If you are going to speak of supply and demand than please consider the fact that it is the relationship between the two that matters. If supply keeps up with demand then prices will not increase. Back when San Fransisco was developing there was plenty of land to build on and even though people were moving into the city in large numbers it was cheap. In fact, many of Henry George's thoughts were based on the differences between San Fransisco and more developed cities (Philly, NYC etc). To quote him:

"I asked a passing teamster, for want of something better to say, what land was worth there. He pointed to some cows grazing so far off that they looked like mice, and said, 'I don't know exactly, but there is a man over there who will sell some land for a thousand dollars an acre.' Like a flash it came over me that there was the reason of advancing poverty with advancing wealth. With the growth of population, land grows in value, and the men who work it must pay more for the privilege"

As the other poster suggested California and San Fransisco in particular did not really become expensive (relative to local incomes) until around 1970's, incidentally this is when prop 13 passed. After the 70's real estate in California started to become detached from local incomes. Now San Fransisco has one of the worst distributions of wealth in the nation.

Anyhow, Pittsburgh and San Fransisco are not very comparable and I think anybody that says Pittsburgh is better than San Fransisco (assuming cost isn't an issue) is a bit loopy. But for the majority that are not rich cost is an issue. So the important question is not which city is better, but which city is better for the price.

I think someone in this thread mentioned owning a 2/1 900 square foot place, that was valued at $500k during the peak of the housing bubble and $350k now. Even if you take today's price, you can buy a rather nice home for $350k in Squirrel Hill. Which is better? Living in a shack in San Fransisco or living in a large home in one of the good neighborhoods of Pittsburgh? Although, the 2/1 900 sq place in San Fransisco should get considerably cheaper in the next few years. Maybe in the 200~250k range.

Also, although the architecture is different Pittsburgh has just as many beautiful old homes as San Fransisco. Unfortunately, many are run down and are in undesirable neighborhoods.

Anyhow, there is a huge secular shift going on right now. Many younger folks (25~35) are starting to look for alternatives to the high priced areas where they can actually own a reasonable house, start a family etc. These areas are essentially engineered so that older residents can suck wealth from the newer residents, but the younger do not seem very interested in playing the game. Its going to be very interesting to see what happens over the next decade. I'm not sure if Pittsburgh will see a lot of new residents though, the city is a pretty horrible place to do business.

[pittsteelerfan]

Originally Posted by user_id

San Fransisco was NOT always been expensive. If you are going to speak of supply and demand than please consider the fact that it is the relationship between the two that matters. If supply keeps up with demand then prices will not increase. Back when San Fransisco was developing there was plenty of land to build on and even though people were moving into the city in large numbers it was cheap. In fact, many of Henry George's thoughts were based on the differences between San Fransisco and more developed cities (Philly, NYC etc). To quote him:

"I asked a passing teamster, for want of something better to say, what land was worth there. He pointed to some cows grazing so far off that they looked like mice, and said, 'I don't know exactly, but there is a man over there who will sell some land for a thousand dollars an acre.' Like a flash it came over me that there was the reason of advancing poverty with advancing wealth. With the growth of population, land grows in value, and the men who work it must pay more for the privilege"

As the other poster suggested California and San Fransisco in particular did not really become expensive (relative to local incomes) until around 1970's, incidentally this is when prop 13 passed. After the 70's real estate in California started to become detached from local incomes. Now San Fransisco has one of the worst distributions of wealth in the nation.

Anyhow, Pittsburgh and San Fransisco are not very comparable and I think anybody that says Pittsburgh is better than San Fransisco (assuming cost isn't an issue) is a bit loopy. But for the majority that are not rich cost is an issue. So the important question is not which city is better, but which city is better for the price.

I think someone in this thread mentioned owning a 2/1 900 square foot place, that was valued at $500k during the peak of the housing bubble and $350k now. Even if you take today's price, you can buy a rather nice home for $350k in Squirrel Hill. Which is better? Living in a shack in San Fransisco or living in a large home in one of the good neighborhoods of Pittsburgh? Although, the 2/1 900 sq place in San Fransisco should get considerably cheaper in the next few years. Maybe in the 200~250k range.

Also, although the architecture is different Pittsburgh has just as many beautiful old homes as San Fransisco. Unfortunately, many are run down and are in undesirable neighborhoods.

Anyhow, there is a huge secular shift going on right now. Many younger folks (25~35) are starting to look for alternatives to the high priced areas where they can actually own a reasonable house, start a family etc. These areas are essentially engineered so that older residents can suck wealth from the newer residents, but the younger do not seem very interested in playing the game. Its going to be very interesting to see what happens over the next decade. I'm not sure if Pittsburgh will see a lot of new residents though, the city is a pretty horrible place to do business.

I beg to differ on SF not always being expensive. As I said in a previous post, before the 1970's, American cities were a lot closer to all being on the same playing field. And their salaries did make up the difference for the most part. How expensive do you think Pittsburgh was prior to the 1970's? Look at the housing prices now.

But saying that SF was ever cheap, is far from accurate. Plus, 1970 was almost 40 years ago. He's trying to split hairs with even bringing that up. It wasn't until the 1950's (after WWII) that America really started to grow and prosper, and enjoy the standard of living that we know today as the "American Dream".

Me saying that SF was "always expensive", I was really talking about modern times. Especially wasn't talking about going back before the 1950's. Most of us on here probably weren't even born yet, or just a small child going back that far. But don't think during times of the "Gold Rush" or even the "Great Depression", that they didn't charge high prices. Don't forget, they built the Golden Gate Bridge during the Depression. Believe me, they got more for those rents than they normally would of, cause of the workers on that bridge.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by pittsteelerfan

I beg to differ on SF not always being expensive. As I said in a previous post, before the 1970's, American cities were a lot closer to all being on the same playing field. And their salaries did make up the difference for the most part.

You can beg to differ all you like, but these are simply facts. San Fransisco use to be dirt cheap in comparison to other cities. American cities were never in the "same playing field", because conditions in the market place are always changing.

Originally Posted by pittsteelerfan

But saying that SF was ever cheap, is far from accurate.

Its simply a historic fact that San Fransisco was extremely cheap in the past. The city was not erected in a single day and there use to be lots of land to build on.

Originally Posted by pittsteelerfan

Plus, 1970 was almost 40 years ago. He's trying to split hairs with even bringing that up. It wasn't until the 1950's (after WWII) that America really started to grow and prosper, and enjoy the standard of living that we know today as the "American Dream".

You say things that are rather opposite of the truth as if they are factually. Its sort of funny. What do you think happened during the roaring 20's? Americans way of life changed much more between 1900-1920 then it did between say the 1945~1965. What happened during that period? Automobiles started to become widespread. Cities started to become electrified, a large number of consumer electric devices come out, etc etc. It was not until the 1980's that America saw another such profound transformation (when computers started to become widespread).

Originally Posted by pittsteelerfan

Believe me, they got more for those rents than they normally would of, cause of the workers on that bridge.

Why would I believe you? Where you tracking rents back then? Again you seem to fall to understand that increased demand will only raise prices if the supply does not increase in a similar fashion. Your idea of supply/demand seems to revolve around the supply being fixed. In an efficient economy increases in demand will be met with increases in supply. The only time this does not occur is if there is a physical limitation or the government gets in the way. Neither of these occurred in the 1930's in California.

Anyhow, Pittsburgh houses are cheap because the supply is greater than the demand. This represents a good arbitrage opportunity for people that can make decent money in the city as housing is depressed below what would normally be justified by local incomes. Unfortunately, the best pickings were 5-10 years ago. But I think there are going to be some real steals in the next 2-3 years again. In contrast San Fransisco is so expensive because the demand is greater than the supply. San Fransisco has been built out so there is no easy way to add to the housing stock. I think the only reason people have bought real estate in San Fransisco the last 1-2 decades is because they erroneously believed it will continue to appreciate to the moon. In this sense the supply was artificially increased by speculation. Interesting, as expected the market responded to what it perceived as a genuine demand by building a large number of homes, condos, etc both in the cities and suburbs. Now California real estate is rather similar to Pittsburgh, there is more supply than demand. In 2-3 years (perhaps longer) when housing is really depressed it may also be a good arbitrage opportunity.

[pittsteelerfan]

Originally Posted by user_id

You can beg to differ all you like, but these are simply facts. San Fransisco use to be dirt cheap in comparison to other cities. American cities were never in the "same playing field", because conditions in the market place are always changing.


Its simply a historic fact that San Fransisco was extremely cheap in the past. The city was not erected in a single day and there use to be lots of land to build on.


You say things that are rather opposite of the truth as if they are factually. Its sort of funny. What do you think happened during the roaring 20's? Americans way of life changed much more between 1900-1920 then it did between say the 1945~1965. What happened during that period? Automobiles started to become widespread. Cities started to become electrified, a large number of consumer electric devices come out, etc etc. It was not until the 1980's that America saw such a profound transformation when computers started to become widespread.


Why would I believe you? Where you tracking rents back then? Again you seem to fall to understand that increased demand will only raise prices if the supply does not increase in a similar fashion. Your idea of supply/demand seems to revolve around the supply being fixed. In an efficient economy increases in demand will be met with increases in supply. The only time this does not occur is if there is a physical limitation or the government gets in the way. Neither of these occurred in the 1930's in California.

Anyhow, Pittsburgh houses are cheap because the supply is greater than the demand. This represents a good arbitrage opportunity for people that can make decent money in the city. In contrast San Fransisco is so expensive because the demand is greater than the supply. San Fransisco has been built out so there is no easy way to add to the housing stock.

Please list the years that SF was "dirt cheap".

You don't have to bring up "SUPPLY and DEMAND" to me, I understand it completely. Don't forget, in Pittsburgh, that will be nabe to nabe. Pittsburgh can't get away with selling a nice house in a lousy nabe for lots of money. Unlike some cities like SF or NYC.

The "roaring 20's"? lol When did things like interstates, travelling for pleasure, and people being able to buy their own homes begin? America as we know it, started after WWII. The wealth was a lot more evenly distributed around in the 50's and on. Look how much ground the unions gained during that era. Compared to the 20's? lol lol

P.S. You suggesting that something existing, and someone actually owning something, is somehow the same. American's owning a car, American's owning a house, American's driving to the coast for a family vacation. Those things came about for the 'average' American after WWII, not before.

[pittsteelerfan]

P.S. If you have to go back to 1920's or 1930's America, to say that SF hasn't always been expensive, that's a stretch. I mean why not go back to when people where getting around on horseback? I'll do a retraction instead of this back and forth debate.

SF has been EXPENSIVE for the last 40 years! How's that?

[creepsinc]

Originally Posted by user_id

You can beg to differ all you like, but these are simply facts. San Fransisco use to be dirt cheap in comparison to other cities. American cities were never in the "same playing field", because conditions in the market place are always changing.


Its simply a historic fact that San Fransisco was extremely cheap in the past. The city was not erected in a single day and there use to be lots of land to build on.


You say things that are rather opposite of the truth as if they are factually. Its sort of funny. What do you think happened during the roaring 20's? Americans way of life changed much more between 1900-1920 then it did between say the 1945~1965. What happened during that period? Automobiles started to become widespread. Cities started to become electrified, a large number of consumer electric devices come out, etc etc. It was not until the 1980's that America saw another such profound transformation (when computers started to become widespread).


Why would I believe you? Where you tracking rents back then? Again you seem to fall to understand that increased demand will only raise prices if the supply does not increase in a similar fashion. Your idea of supply/demand seems to revolve around the supply being fixed. In an efficient economy increases in demand will be met with increases in supply. The only time this does not occur is if there is a physical limitation or the government gets in the way. Neither of these occurred in the 1930's in California.

Anyhow, Pittsburgh houses are cheap because the supply is greater than the demand. This represents a good arbitrage opportunity for people that can make decent money in the city as housing is depressed below what would normally be justified by local incomes. Unfortunately, the best pickings were 5-10 years ago. But I think there are going to be some real steals in the next 2-3 years again. In contrast San Fransisco is so expensive because the demand is greater than the supply. San Fransisco has been built out so there is no easy way to add to the housing stock. I think the only reason people have bought real estate in San Fransisco the last 1-2 decades is because they erroneously believed it will continue to appreciate to the moon. In this sense the supply was artificially increased by speculation. Interesting, as expected the market responded to what it perceived as a genuine demand by building a large number of homes, condos, etc both in the cities and suburbs. Now California real estate is rather similar to Pittsburgh, there is more supply than demand. In 2-3 years (perhaps longer) when housing is really depressed it may also be a good arbitrage opportunity.

Don't bother. Some people shut their eyes tight and deny deny deny, no matter how many facts get in the way.


Also, I may be loopy, but there are reasons to prefer Pittsburgh to San Francisco. One of them is how suffocated I felt there, constantly surrounded by a crush of humanity. I'll say it here: If the COL was precisely the same in both cities (in fact, ALL cities in the country), I'd be right where I am. Possibly in Squirrel Hill. It's a subjective universe. I just live in it.

[pittsteelerfan]

Originally Posted by creepsinc

Don't bother. Some people shut their eyes tight and deny deny deny, no matter how many facts get in the way.


Also, I may be loopy, but there are reasons to prefer Pittsburgh to San Francisco. One of them is how suffocated I felt there, constantly surrounded by a crush of humanity. I'll say it here: If the COL was precisely the same in both cities (in fact, ALL cities in the country), I'd be right where I am. Possibly in Squirrel Hill. It's a subjective universe. I just live in it.

They sure do "deny"...^^^^^^! If you're that happy in Pittsburgh, good for you. But, unfortunately for Pittsburgh, less and less people feel that way.

And you'd be in a minority as far as choosing Pittsburgh over SF if the COL was the same, a VERY small minority!

[rubybelle]

Originally Posted by pittsteelerfan

SF has ALWAYS been more expensive than Pittsburgh, and has ALWAYS been one of the most expensive cities in America. Before the 1970's, American cities were more on an equal playing field with each other. Remember, it was only one generation ago that most women stayed home to raise kids instead of being in the workforce.

In 2000', the average price of realestate in SF was $422,700. In 2007', it was $830,700. The poverty in SF is 10.5%. People living in SF with atleast a bachelor's degree, is 45%.

In 2000', the average price of realestate in Pittsburgh was $60,700. In 2007', it was $84,700. The poverty in Pittsburgh is 21% (exactly double compared to SF). People living in Pittburgh with atleast a bachelor's degree, is 26.2% (almost half compared to SF).

Now you can say all you want that SF wasn't always this expensive. Of course it wasn't, things go up. Mannhattan in 2000', the average price was $361,100, compared to 2007' it was $808,200. NYC wasn't exactly cheap in 2000', even though the realestate was much more affordable. In fact, those 2000' prices do look "cheap"! But anyone who spent years living there, will all say the same thing, "NYC has ALWAYS been expensive"!

So why is Pittsburgh so cheap then? Is it really 'that' underrated? YES and NO. It's not underrated for the 'working' class. Now everybody works, I'm talking about the guys who 'have' to take a shower as soon as they walk in the door from work. Cause they're filthy, and they stink. The blue collar types is what I'm talking about. But for a colledge educated person? I don't think Pittsburgh is "underrated".

It's not that Pittsburgh doesn't offer the things of these other 'trendy' cities, it does, maybe sometimes just on a smaller scale. One of the biggest problems about Pittsburgh, it NEVER became "trendy". I'm sure a lot of Pittsburgh'ers see this as a plus, just for the fact the prices reflect that. But cities that were labled "trendy", their populations grew along with their economies. Take cities like Seattle or Portland. Those two were probably the 'it' cities of the 90's. Pittsburgh has never seen that type of growth or national exposure.

Sure Pittsburgh is rich in history, but how much of that is recent? If it wasn't for our beloved Steelers, what in Pittsburgh would be grabbing any kind of headlines.

A lot of people like living in "trendy" cities. Are they overrated? Sure they are. But who in the world hasn't heard of San Fransico or NYC or LA? And people will continue to pay higher prices to live in those cities. Even if it means they have to rent forever.

And for you to say that SF has similiar rowhouse's, is a stretch to say the least. Whoever reads this, if you haven't been to SF, simply go over to the SF forum. The first thread is SF pics. Tell me SF doesn't look like a Mediterranean city. Almost everything is white or an 'off white' there. And their victorian homes don't look like there sitting in Pittsburgh either. The bay area is much different than Pittsburgh. Being in the Pacific Heights nabe of SF, is much different than being in the Hill District of Pittsburgh. The housing stock alone is much different, besides the feel between the two.

I keep hearing how people are leaving Pittsburgh cause of the "jobs". Really? With housing as cheap as it is in Pittsburgh, how much does one have to generate a year? Not very much, especially compared to other major metro areas. And if 'these' people who are leaving Pittsburgh cause of "jobs", ain't some of them blue collar workers. Do they really think they'll make more in the sunbelt or other major metros? The sunbelt doesn't pay anything. And other major metros have high immigrant populations who drive the wages WAY down (a problem Pittsburgh doesn't have).

Almost every bar in Pittsburgh, has a 'guy' who makes a living by doing 'odd' jobs. You know the type, jack of all trades, master at none. One day he's painting someone's bedroom, the next day he's cleaning someone's gutters out, next day he's cleaning someon'e cellar out, etc etc. Sometimes he might go a few days without a job, but is always able to eek a living out. There ain't too many places left in America that you can do this. Illegal Mexicans cornered the market on this type of work.

So, there must be other reasons besides "jobs" why people continue to move out of Pittsburgh. And why Pittsburgh can't attract any new people to the city.... Saying that Pittsburgh is somehow "America's best kept secret", may have been true 20 years ago. But not in the era of the internet. It wouldn't take someone long to google around and find out that Pittsburgh is one of the cheapest of the major metros. People know, they just ain't biting. I could never move back Pittsburgh, and I was born and raised there. How about someone coming from a city like San Fransico, who was born and raised there? You think culture shock wouldn't happen? Sure the view from MT. Washington is beautiful. But so are many views from SF and the Bay area in general.

Some of the things you're saying, are leaning towards 'false' pride. Nothing wrong with hometown pride, even if you're a transplant to Pittsburgh. But saying something that's not true, doesn't make it true.

WOW.... I live here, grew up around here and even I think you are right! The older I get, and the more I travel, the more I want to move from here. I love the people, family, and the weather. There's plenty to do. But it's just so run down it's beginning to bug even me, and I LOVE this place! But you're right, anyone who has been anywhere bigger, nicer or newer, cannot say that Pittsburgh is so great. Not great looking anyway. It's pretty from afar.... It's pretty at night. It's got nice neighborhoods, but all in all, it's pretty dirty and run down. Most of the houses built here were never meant to be lived in for a hundred years! Maybe some in Shadyside, or Squirell Hill, Mt. Lebanon even (although not that old) but geez guys, it is what it is. If we could just accept it and do what other cites have done and begin to tear down and build back up - better, newer, cleaner, more energy efficient, think of how beautiful this place could be! Not many places have the cool hills like we have. I love the hills!!!

[rubybelle]

Originally Posted by user_id

San Fransisco was NOT always been expensive. If you are going to speak of supply and demand than please consider the fact that it is the relationship between the two that matters. If supply keeps up with demand then prices will not increase. Back when San Fransisco was developing there was plenty of land to build on and even though people were moving into the city in large numbers it was cheap. In fact, many of Henry George's thoughts were based on the differences between San Fransisco and more developed cities (Philly, NYC etc). To quote him:

"I asked a passing teamster, for want of something better to say, what land was worth there. He pointed to some cows grazing so far off that they looked like mice, and said, 'I don't know exactly, but there is a man over there who will sell some land for a thousand dollars an acre.' Like a flash it came over me that there was the reason of advancing poverty with advancing wealth. With the growth of population, land grows in value, and the men who work it must pay more for the privilege"

As the other poster suggested California and San Fransisco in particular did not really become expensive (relative to local incomes) until around 1970's, incidentally this is when prop 13 passed. After the 70's real estate in California started to become detached from local incomes. Now San Fransisco has one of the worst distributions of wealth in the nation.

Anyhow, Pittsburgh and San Fransisco are not very comparable and I think anybody that says Pittsburgh is better than San Fransisco (assuming cost isn't an issue) is a bit loopy. But for the majority that are not rich cost is an issue. So the important question is not which city is better, but which city is better for the price.

I think someone in this thread mentioned owning a 2/1 900 square foot place, that was valued at $500k during the peak of the housing bubble and $350k now. Even if you take today's price, you can buy a rather nice home for $350k in Squirrel Hill. Which is better? Living in a shack in San Fransisco or living in a large home in one of the good neighborhoods of Pittsburgh? Although, the 2/1 900 sq place in San Fransisco should get considerably cheaper in the next few years. Maybe in the 200~250k range.

Also, although the architecture is different Pittsburgh has just as many beautiful old homes as San Fransisco. Unfortunately, many are run down and are in undesirable neighborhoods.

Anyhow, there is a huge secular shift going on right now. Many younger folks (25~35) are starting to look for alternatives to the high priced areas where they can actually own a reasonable house, start a family etc. These areas are essentially engineered so that older residents can suck wealth from the newer residents, but the younger do not seem very interested in playing the game. Its going to be very interesting to see what happens over the next decade. I'm not sure if Pittsburgh will see a lot of new residents though, the city is a pretty horrible place to do business.

I don't get why people always say this city is a terrible place to do business. There are MORE mom and pop places/business' than any other place I know of. Nearly everyone I live around owns their own business.