U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-07-2014, 03:05 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,769,822 times
Reputation: 1616

Advertisements

I don't really know how these things work, but I thought interstates were maintained by state DOTs? For what it's worth, I think all of those cities (KC, Dallas, Houston, St Louis) experienced pretty heavy population loss in the cores, though not quite extreme as Phoenix.

A counter-example would be Minneapolis, which experienced moderate inner city population loss, mostly due to changes in household sizes and maybe a bit of urban renewal and eminent domain for highways and such, but relatively little abandonment. This is despite having little new development for many decades, lower densities than Detroit, and also quite a few highways.

I think one of the things that these highways did do is make more land available for development in the suburbs, making them less expensive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-08-2014, 07:17 AM
 
5,722 posts, read 8,790,829 times
Reputation: 4938
Quote:
some neighborhoods become less appealing due to their design/location/other factors, begin to stagnate, decline and eventually even get demolished
Why do you assume that the unfashionable neighborhoods get demolished? Where will the unfashionable people live?

I too think the major trend will be multi generational housing. I've seen master-on- main Mcmansions that have enough room in the closets for conversion to a small apartment. Plenty of room in the rest of the house for the primary family unit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2014, 07:39 AM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,961,770 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
Maybe that wasn't the best way of putting it. But ultimately, why did housing values fall so low and property taxes rise so high? Wasn't it largely because people were leaving? It doesn't/didn't cost a whole lot to live in the Detroit suburbs (housing+transportation costs), so a lot of people were able to make the move. If the cost of living in the Detroit suburbs had been higher, fewer people would be able to afford the move, including people that earn more than the typical current Detroit resident, leading to higher rents/prices in Detroit proper.
Housing costs are largely a product of local incomes. You might get distortions in certain markets where supply is severely restricted (Manhattan, SF, parts of DC, Boston, etc) but generally speaking, on a regional level, you can count on housing prices being somewhere between 25 and 40% of household income.

You have situations, like in some Canadian cities, where housing prices are rising faster than incomes and everyone is looking for a correction - especially in Toronto and Vancouver. That correction could come in the form of higher incomes, lower house prices, or an increase in supply - or a combination of all three but most people are saying that T.O. and Van are overbuilt so the experts are expecting a drop in house prices . . . this is precisely what happened in markets like Las Vegas, Phoenix and Miami.

Here's a good analysis of the situation in Sydney -
http://smh.domain.com.au/real-estate...007-169q6.html

Anyway, Detroit has been losing industry for +40 years and many of the jobs that were lost came all at once dumping thousands into the workforce in a region that was struggling to create new jobs in the first place. There are a lot of reasons why Detroit failed but the reason house prices fell so low is because supply exceeded demand by tens of thousands of units. That happened because the jobs disappeared.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2014, 07:50 AM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,961,770 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbandweller13 View Post
I dont see how immigration in general is particularly useful in the scenario where technology destroys blue collar and white collar jobs alike (which is what's happening). I mean what would these immigrants do to afford this housing market?
They don't have to do anything . . . those house values are going to take a long and hard tumble.

Quote:
The only type of immigration that could be helpful is chinese urban residents cashing out of their ridiculously priced apartments in Hong Kong and Shanghai and snapping up "bargains" in CA and NY:

Middle-class flight: Yearning to breathe free | The Economist
Maybe, but it seems a lot of them are also doing that in Sydney, Vancouver, London, etc but either way that sort of thing is not going to have much impact on the value of my parents' place way out in the 'burbs.

Quote:
As well as other already wealthy, or highly educated, or both, immigrants from developing world (brazlians, russians, you name it). Your typical "huddled masses" would only saddle the system with more costs.
And that's exactly what's going to happen.

Quote:
I agree with your point #2 about all value accruing to the top - not even 1%, top 0.5% probably. So absurdly wealthy neighborhoods (think Park Avenue in NYC) are probably "safe" and will remain even more unattainable going forward.

What about the rest ? The people who have both the ability and the desire to own real estate (a shrinking group going forward) will shape the future of neighborhoods. What are the characteristics they desire?
Those people are going to want to own property that can command a decent rent and they're going to want to live in a place that is close to where they work and recreate and close to an airport/train station. I definitely think we're headed back to an economy and lifestyles that are more like the gilded age than anything any of us can relate to. The wealthy of tomorrow are going to be living much like their counterparts of the late 19th/early 20th century.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2014, 10:25 AM
 
5,076 posts, read 8,536,061 times
Reputation: 4632
To those predicting a boomer sell off in the future, you need to take into account that older boomers already have children in their 40's. they likely sold their family house and moved years ago. Nearly everyone I know in this age group has already figured out where they'll be living in retirement- it's not just some future uncertain event.

One of the odd effects of the housing bubble was it encouraged a lot of boomers to invest more in real estate at a time when they should have been downsizing- kids out of the house, preparing for retirement. Instead a lot of them moved up and subsequently lost their house or houses to foreclosure. This was a massive forced downsizing that has already happened and will reduce the flow of boomer homes onto the market going forward.

The other mitigating factor is many of the boomer houses were in suburbs that are functionally obsolete. Younger buyers don't want to live there and as a result these houses won't end up adding much supply, and having little effect on home prices in places people actually want to live.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2014, 01:17 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,769,822 times
Reputation: 1616
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
Housing costs are largely a product of local incomes. You might get distortions in certain markets where supply is severely restricted (Manhattan, SF, parts of DC, Boston, etc) but generally speaking, on a regional level, you can count on housing prices being somewhere between 25 and 40% of household income.

You have situations, like in some Canadian cities, where housing prices are rising faster than incomes and everyone is looking for a correction - especially in Toronto and Vancouver. That correction could come in the form of higher incomes, lower house prices, or an increase in supply - or a combination of all three but most people are saying that T.O. and Van are overbuilt so the experts are expecting a drop in house prices . . . this is precisely what happened in markets like Las Vegas, Phoenix and Miami.

Here's a good analysis of the situation in Sydney -
http://smh.domain.com.au/real-estate...007-169q6.html

Anyway, Detroit has been losing industry for +40 years and many of the jobs that were lost came all at once dumping thousands into the workforce in a region that was struggling to create new jobs in the first place. There are a lot of reasons why Detroit failed but the reason house prices fell so low is because supply exceeded demand by tens of thousands of units. That happened because the jobs disappeared.
I agree that the economic situation was a factor, but you still had relatively stable population at the metro area level for the last 40 years, which means that the suburbs were growing while the city was shrinking. I would think housing costs in the suburbs (especially new construction) are still higher than in the city, even when you account for deferred maintenance and taxes (or do you disagree)?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2014, 01:27 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,069 posts, read 102,785,508 times
Reputation: 33122
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkarch View Post
To those predicting a boomer sell off in the future, you need to take into account that older boomers already have children in their 40's. they likely sold their family house and moved years ago. Nearly everyone I know in this age group has already figured out where they'll be living in retirement- it's not just some future uncertain event.

One of the odd effects of the housing bubble was it encouraged a lot of boomers to invest more in real estate at a time when they should have been downsizing- kids out of the house, preparing for retirement. Instead a lot of them moved up and subsequently lost their house or houses to foreclosure. This was a massive forced downsizing that has already happened and will reduce the flow of boomer homes onto the market going forward.

The other mitigating factor is many of the boomer houses were in suburbs that are functionally obsolete. Younger buyers don't want to live there and as a result these houses won't end up adding much supply, and having little effect on home prices in places people actually want to live.
DH and I are older Boomers and our oldest just turned 30. Granted, we had our kids late, but not *that* late; we were still in our 30s. The only Boomers to have reached full retirement age are 67-68 years old, b. 1946 and 1947. Most of the rest of us poor slobs are still working. DH's oldest brother, now 71, is just now downsizing his living quarters. The next oldest one, age 68, is thinking about it. I'm at the age where a lot of my friends and/or their husbands (most of them technically my friends as well) are retiring, and most are, for the present, "retiring in place", e.g. staying in their family homes. I know a few single women my age, still working, who have downsized.

Few people would consider Boulder or Louisville Colorado "functionally obsolete". Louisville in particular still has a number of young families.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2014, 02:11 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,476 posts, read 11,975,150 times
Reputation: 10577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
DH and I are older Boomers and our oldest just turned 30. Granted, we had our kids late, but not *that* late; we were still in our 30s. The only Boomers to have reached full retirement age are 67-68 years old, b. 1946 and 1947. Most of the rest of us poor slobs are still working. DH's oldest brother, now 71, is just now downsizing his living quarters. The next oldest one, age 68, is thinking about it. I'm at the age where a lot of my friends and/or their husbands (most of them technically my friends as well) are retiring, and most are, for the present, "retiring in place", e.g. staying in their family homes. I know a few single women my age, still working, who have downsized.

Few people would consider Boulder or Louisville Colorado "functionally obsolete". Louisville in particular still has a number of young families.
My mother will be 64 this year, and my older brother will be 40. Given the oldest boomers were born in 1947, not 1950, it stands to reason that plenty of people in this age bracket who married/had kids young would have children in their early 40s now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2014, 02:15 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,069 posts, read 102,785,508 times
Reputation: 33122
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
My mother will be 64 this year, and my older brother will be 40. Given the oldest boomers were born in 1947, not 1950, it stands to reason that plenty of people in this age bracket who married/had kids young would have children in their early 40s now.
The oldest Boomers were born in 1946. They are 68 years old. Yes, they could have a 40 year old, in fact, my BIL, age 68, has a 42 yr old. However, the bigger issue is where these Boomers are living. Most are living in the homes they bought when raising their families.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2014, 02:23 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,744,574 times
Reputation: 26681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
The oldest Boomers were born in 1946. They are 68 years old. Yes, they could have a 40 year old, in fact, my BIL, age 68, has a 42 yr old. However, the bigger issue is where these Boomers are living. Most are living in the homes they bought when raising their families.
My parents are boomers (and not), born in 1946 and 1948. They had kids on the late end of things (we are in our early to mid-30s. And also have moved a few times since we left the house. Now they live in a place that is smaller than the homes we grew up in. Switching to a single level home was important to them. They also moved away from the "hustle and bustle" of the city.

My mom's sister's (mostly boomers), all moved away from their "family" homes and downgraded in size, before it was known as a trend.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top