Has Sacramento became Bay Area yet ? (homes, traffic, increase)

[WizardOfRadical]

Sacramento is not an organic, wholistic, natural real estate market. It is a bay area speculator induced market.

High prices force the real estate cabal into the valley. When prices shoot up in the bay, they do in sacto.

Only problem is, rents have shot up now too, and everyone is feeling the pinch. 1200 might get you an okay studio, or a slumpartment in an iffy area.

Last year decent 1 bedrooms where 1300 and up, it is probably way higher now. Probably more like 1400 and up.

[annerk]

Originally Posted by Sactoslacker

It's blowing up, stay away, we are full!

So how would you solve this problem:

My husband is being recruited by a growing company in the greater Sacramento area. They have obviously exhausted their search for a qualified local candidate. Should that company not continue their relatively slow growth which will continue to create jobs--many which could be filled locally? If there is no housing, the growth of high paying local jobs will cease as one of the things candidates will always look at is suitable (and reasonably affordable) housing.

If they can't hire people (and no, there won't always be a pool of suitable candidates locally, particularly with some STEM related industries) companies pack up and move to other parts of the country more welcoming to business.

Whether you want to admit it or not, the population of the USA continues to grow, and along with it there will be new housing starts. Hopefully they will be on trend with population growth as opposed to over saturating the market with inventory, which is partially to blame for the last collapse.

[sacite]

Originally Posted by wburg

Sacramento has pretty much the highest rent increases in the country right now; the building industry is restricting housing supply in order to drive up prices. The Sacramento metro areas is mostly strip malls and suburbs, but so is the Bay Area. Where are you coming from, Upstateman92?

That’s not true at all. Numerous developers are submitting projects left and right but resident groups, protectionists and even the city itself is slowing the process considerably. They don’t want any “highrise” buildings anywhere near the core or midtown and they do not want a single tree cut down. As it is though, I can think of at least 6 condo or apartment projects that have broken ground or are near completion. There are others such as the 15 story Yamanee and Sacramento Commons that are waiting to break ground but still getting pushback from the local neighborhood and protectionist groups. These people appear to be fighting against their own self interests and it’s really difficult to understsnd why. Building “up” rather than out will only enhance the flavor of the local neighborhood and it will be financially beneficial for both small businesses and residents alike.

[sacite]

As to your question; yes, you can live in a CADA property in midtown for $1k per month. You’d be exactly 20-30 min from the airport. CADA properties are older, historical properties in a specific area of downtown/midtown which are owned and managed by the City. They do not have the amenities of the newer apartments, but do offer considerably lower rates. I lived in one about 2 yrs ago and paid $1,050 for a 1 BR.

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by sacite

That’s not true at all. Numerous developers are submitting projects left and right but resident groups, protectionists and even the city itself is slowing the process considerably. They don’t want any “highrise” buildings anywhere near the core or midtown and they do not want a single tree cut down. As it is though, I can think of at least 6 condo or apartment projects that have broken ground or are near completion. There are others such as the 15 story Yamanee and Sacramento Commons that are waiting to break ground but still getting pushback from the local neighborhood and protectionist groups. These people appear to be fighting against their own self interests and it’s really difficult to understsnd why. Building “up” rather than out will only enhance the flavor of the local neighborhood and it will be financially beneficial for both small businesses and residents alike.

I agree with this. You can either build up, or you can build out. If you build out, you drastically increase commuter congestion and encroach on nature, which diminishes the quality of life and demands lots of water use. If you build up, then you're creating more vibrant neighborhoods with a smaller footprint, but you don't get the American dream of a single family home. Eventually, population increases will force a lot more density as in other parts of the world.

[wburg]

We're already building up in the central city, but that's just four square miles of a 98 square mile city that's mostly zoned for single family homes only. In the rest of the city and the region, we're building out. Maybe we should build up in more than one neighborhood?

[Californiaguy2007]

All i'm gonna say is Sacramento is pricey compared to other Central Valley cities,but it's still more affordable than The Bay Area.

[Stay West]

Sacramento is not an organic, wholistic, natural real estate market.

Talk about nonsense terms that don’t mean anything. I suppose it’s not vegetarian either?

[wburg]

Originally Posted by Stay West

Talk about nonsense terms that don’t mean anything. I suppose it’s not vegetarian either?

And we're far from gluten free!

[Luckystrike1]

Originally Posted by Sactoslacker

It's blowing up, stay away, we are full!

LOL!!! Sounds like Portland.

Actually, though, I visited a friend there last Sept and then again last month, and I couldn't help but notice an increase in traffic in that short of a time. Homes being thrown up everywhere. I asked her if it was just my imagination and she said no.