Seattle came in #7 as salary required to buy a home (yahoo finance) (Highland: how much, townhomes)

[civic94]

This was just on yahoo and i clicked it.

Here's Where You Can (and Can't) Buy a Home On Your Salary - Yahoo Finance

I was surprised Seattle came in at 7, Boston at 5, NYC at 4, LA at 3, and #1 is San Fran.

[Hemlock140]

Maybe that's part of the reason why we are #3 for the number of homeless?

The cities with the largest homeless populations are:

New York City: 64,060
Los Angeles city and county: 53,798
Seattle/King County: 9,106
San Diego city and county: 8,879
San Jose/Santa Clara County: 7,631
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development


http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-...-numbers-among

[flyingsaucermom]

Originally Posted by civic94

This was just on yahoo and i clicked it.

[URL="http://finance.yahoo.com/news/here-s-where-you-can--and-can-t--buy-a-home-on-a-five-figure-salary-214349734.html"]Here's Where You Can (and Can't) Buy a Home On Your Salary - Yahoo Finance[/URL]

I was surprised Seattle came in at 7, Boston at 5, NYC at 4, LA at 3, and #1 is San Fran.

DC, NYC and Boston are really close in number... for some reason, that makes it feel like we're a little higher up on the list than we actually are.

[GatsbyGatz]

Originally Posted by Hemlock140

Maybe that's part of the reason why we are #3 for the number of homeless?

The cities with the largest homeless populations are:

New York City: 64,060
Los Angeles city and county: 53,798
Seattle/King County: 9,106
San Diego city and county: 8,879
San Jose/Santa Clara County: 7,631
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development


San Jose-Santa Clara County homeless numbers among highest in nation - San Jose Mercury News

Seattle with more homeless than SF? Not sure about that...

[Hemlock140]

Originally Posted by GatsbyGatz

Seattle with more homeless than SF? Not sure about that...

The number of homeless is difficult to count, and I know that here they really beat the bushes looking for them at census time. It could be that we are more accurately counted than some other cities and that skews the results, but we are still right up there. The mild climate and apathy toward dealing with them attracts more homeless here.

[JBVirtuoso]

Originally Posted by flyingsaucermom

DC, NYC and Boston are really close in number... for some reason, that makes it feel like we're a little higher up on the list than we actually are.

Yeah, there's a lot about this list that doesn't seem quite right. The one that sticks out to me is how Minneapolis is above Chicago - that just doesn't make any sense at all, given that Chicago is much more expensive (probably fairly close to Seattle). Portland and Baltimore also seem a bit high.

This study also doesn't seem to account for how much house you can get for your money. In NYC, sure, you might be able to hack a purchase on a $70,000 income, but that might only get you an old studio.

And then there's another issue that's not captured here - some cities basically have two separate housing markets. In a lot of these cities, there are effectively two housing markets. Houses in prime locations are wildly expensive, but houses in other parts of town might be cheap because the neighborhood and schools are bad. This is definitely the case with NYC, DC, LA, and Chicago, and probably a number of smaller cities as well. Seattle, Portland, and Minneapolis have a bit more uniformity in regional housing prices.

[Ira500]

Originally Posted by JBVirtuoso

Yeah, there's a lot about this list that doesn't seem quite right. The one that sticks out to me is how Minneapolis is above Chicago - that just doesn't make any sense at all, given that Chicago is much more expensive (probably fairly close to Seattle). Portland and Baltimore also seem a bit high.

This study also doesn't seem to account for how much house you can get for your money. In NYC, sure, you might be able to hack a purchase on a $70,000 income, but that might only get you an old studio.

And then there's another issue that's not captured here - some cities basically have two separate housing markets. In a lot of these cities, there are effectively two housing markets. Houses in prime locations are wildly expensive, but houses in other parts of town might be cheap because the neighborhood and schools are bad. This is definitely the case with NYC, DC, LA, and Chicago, and probably a number of smaller cities as well. Seattle, Portland, and Minneapolis have a bit more uniformity in regional housing prices.

Seattle has two housing markets also. There's the " Ravenna-Queen Anne-Capitol Hill-Ballard-Fremont" etc neighborhoods, and then there's the neighborhoods near the northeast border of the city( Lake City) or the SW ( Delridge, Highland Park) and SE( Rainier Beach) borders, that are much less expensive. As far as schools go, it's odd. Madrona is a very expensive neighborhood, with great little shops and restaurants, and beautiful old houses. The neighborhood elementary school is one of Seattle's worst. I haven't figured that one out yet. People who buy in that neighborhood are so well off that private schools are no problem?

[greenlite]

Originally Posted by JBVirtuoso

Yeah, there's a lot about this list that doesn't seem quite right. The one that sticks out to me is how Minneapolis is above Chicago - that just doesn't make any sense at all, given that Chicago is much more expensive (probably fairly close to Seattle). Portland and Baltimore also seem a bit high.

This study also doesn't seem to account for how much house you can get for your money. In NYC, sure, you might be able to hack a purchase on a $70,000 income, but that might only get you an old studio.

And then there's another issue that's not captured here - some cities basically have two separate housing markets. In a lot of these cities, there are effectively two housing markets. Houses in prime locations are wildly expensive, but houses in other parts of town might be cheap because the neighborhood and schools are bad. This is definitely the case with NYC, DC, LA, and Chicago, and probably a number of smaller cities as well. Seattle, Portland, and Minneapolis have a bit more uniformity in regional housing prices.

exactly, chicago is much more expensive than mpls and more expensive than seattle, when compared apples to apples, chicago's ghettos bring the average home price way down
same with philly, which is not cheaper than portland

[Minntoaz]

Originally Posted by greenlite

exactly, chicago is much more expensive than mpls and more expensive than seattle, when compared apples to apples, chicago's ghettos bring the average home price way down
same with philly, which is not cheaper than portland

Minneapolis is only $37.00 more than Chicago which likely is margin of error.

[civic94]

Originally Posted by greenlite

exactly, chicago is much more expensive than mpls and more expensive than seattle, when compared apples to apples, chicago's ghettos bring the average home price way down
same with philly, which is not cheaper than portland

I have lived in philly before, it really depends, it is cheaper than portland since there are tons of townhomes there that are about 3BR, 950 sf on a 550 sf lot, that sells for 60k, in a bad area (which is all over). the extremely bad areas you can get that kind of house for 30k.

but yes, to live in a safer area where its trendy, with walking distance to everything, you have to spend at least 600k.