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 12-29-2014, 07:19 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,558,119 times
Reputation: 4048

Advertisements

The secret to moving to a city without a lot of jobs is to create your own job once you arrive: start a business, do something useful that people will pay for, either in that city or online.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-29-2014, 09:47 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 16 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,988 posts, read 102,554,590 times
Reputation: 33051
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
Not really. Michigan has a pretty good economy, and there are lots of good paying jobs in Metro Detroit.
Now that a lot of people have left, yes. Michigan's population growth has not kept up with the US' rate. In fact, it lost population for several years in the early 1980s and again in the early 2000s and it only has ~10% more people now than in 1970, a period in which the US population grew by about 50%.
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/pop/pops/st26.asp

Last edited by Yac; 12-31-2014 at 06:25 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2014, 10:46 PM
 
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
6,513 posts, read 9,047,067 times
Reputation: 5008
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
Not really. Michigan has a pretty good economy, and there are lots of good paying jobs in Metro Detroit.
If that is true, why is Michigan the only state from 2000-2010 census to lose population? Not saying there aren't good paying jobs in Metro Detroit, but compare it to a similar sized city like Minneapolis, no comparison.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2014, 10:52 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,985 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Michigan's population growth has not kept up with the US' rate. In fact, it lost population for several years in the early 1980s and again in the early 2000s and it only has ~10% more people now than in 1970, a period in which the US population grew by about 50%.
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
Michigan Population and Components of Change -- Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University Home
I'll point that most of the northern US has not grown that fast, and below the American average. So it would be surprising if Michigan grew at the US average. Michigan grew 11.6% since 1970, New York state has grown only 8.2% since 1970. Not saying metro Detroit has done well economically recently.

Last edited by Yac; 12-31-2014 at 06:25 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2014, 12:24 AM
 
1,478 posts, read 2,001,198 times
Reputation: 1579
Quote:
Originally Posted by rzzzz View Post
Cost to by a home. High home prices, low pay. The urban growth boundary definitely does make housing expensive. I am not sure why you think otherwise.

The Most and Least Affordable Housing in America - CityLab
Cox and analysis don't really go together. The author of the piece you cited explicitly states there is more to it than that. Portland is expensive for many reasons other than a growth boundary. Similarly, there are a lot of metros with a lot if dilapidated housing stock (particularly deindustrializing areas) that people making a living wage wouldn't even consider. You can buy a "house" in parts of Detroit for less than 30 grand That doesn't really make it affordable. It just drags down the avg home value.

A better measure would be to look at "like" areas: similar crime, school performance, proximity to job hubs/transit/amenities. Compare those on an apples to apples basis and see what is more expensive relative to earnings. Quick example of two cities I've lived in (Chicago and STL). If you want a truly urban environment with transit, 20k per square mile density, okay crime, lots if local amenities, you're only going to get that in STL in the Central West End. You can get that on a lot of areas of Chicago at the same price.

With respect to Portland, all else equal an urban boundary will limit supply and increase prices...key phrase being all else equal. You can always build up to increase supply though. A 1400 sq ft condo might be more than a 1800 sq ft sfh in a suburban setting in a more sprawling city, but you get a lot if external features in that condo. I should also point out that Portland's closest peer in terms of lifestyle (Seattle) has less restrictive housing policies but is relatively more expensive. That's a pretty big hole in the argument, no?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2014, 12:50 AM
 
1,774 posts, read 1,834,450 times
Reputation: 2701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago76 View Post
I should also point out that Portland's closest peer in terms of lifestyle (Seattle) has less restrictive housing policies but is relatively more expensive. That's a pretty big hole in the argument, no?
No. Seattle is not more expensive when compared to income. Average household income in Seattle is almost $40,000/yr more than in Portland. Yet a mortgage payment is only about $400/m more than in Portland. Also, Seattle has far more physical growth boundaries compared to Portland. However, this has nothing to do with the topic of the thread anymore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2014, 12:56 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,504,059 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by rzzzz View Post
No. Seattle is not more expensive when compared to income. Average household income in Seattle is almost $40,000/yr more than in Portland. Yet a mortgage payment is only about $400/m more than in Portland. Also, Seattle has far more physical growth boundaries compared to Portland. However, this has nothing to do with the topic of the thread anymore.
Income isn't what this is about, the Seattle metro doesn't have an UGB like Portland, but the inner part of Seattle is expensive, just like inner Portland is expensive. Being able to buy a house an hour and a half commute away from the city center doesn't make the inner neighborhoods of a desirable city more affordable.

You could build thousands of homes for $100K each beyond the UGB in Portland and that wouldn't do anything to lower the cost of housing in desirable inner Portland.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2014, 01:06 AM
 
1,774 posts, read 1,834,450 times
Reputation: 2701
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Income isn't what this is about, the Seattle metro doesn't have an UGB like Portland, but the inner part of Seattle is expensive, just like inner Portland is expensive. Being able to buy a house an hour and a half commute away from the city center doesn't make the inner neighborhoods of a desirable city more affordable.

You could build thousands of homes for $100K each beyond the UGB in Portland and that wouldn't do anything to lower the cost of housing in desirable inner Portland.
Seattle metro does have an urban growth boundary, though... The point of the UGBs is that developers CAN'T build thousands of homes for $100K each beyond the UGB. How it would affect home prices inside the UGB, nobody knows, because it's not possible. Currently, if someone can't afford to live inside the UGB, they are simply SOL.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2014, 01:28 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,504,059 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by rzzzz View Post
Seattle metro does have an urban growth boundary, though... The point of the UGBs is that developers CAN'T build thousands of homes for $100K each beyond the UGB. How it would affect home prices inside the UGB, nobody knows, because it's not possible. Currently, if someone can't afford to live inside the UGB, they are simply SOL.
The Seattle metro has a very loose UGB, nothing like what Portland has. Plus building homes on the edge of a metro aren't going to have any effect on housing in desirable inner neighborhoods. If someone can't afford to buy in the metro they live in, that is more of a income issue than anything else and that isn't something we can really generalize.

But the point still stands, building cheap houses at the outskirts of a metro aren't going to make house prices go down in very desirable inner neighborhoods. That is just a simple fact. Desirability plays a big part when it comes to Supply and Demand. If there is a demand for beautiful old craftsman houses in inner Portland, no amount of condo unit building is ever going to satisfy that demand for craftsman houses, thus the value of an old craftsman house in inner Portland will go up in value.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2014, 06:31 AM
 
Location: Detroit
464 posts, read 345,087 times
Reputation: 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
Not really. Michigan has a pretty good economy, and there are lots of good paying jobs in Metro Detroit.
Are you kidding? Michigan has the worst economy in the US. We have the 10th highest unemployment rate and our cities are half abandoned.

Detroit's downtown has been revitalized in the past decade. Still, much like the 80s and 90s, downtown Detroit remains pretty dead at night. People only go to downtown to see games/go to work. To put it simply: not many people live in the cores of American cities. They prefer the safety and amenities of the suburbs and only commute to downtown to work. To solve the issue "American downtowns are dead" we'd have to get people to move back to the core. How we do that I have little clue, but perhaps apartments that attract the middle-upper class (not grimey or crime ridden) would be a start.
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