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.
We're only satisfying 48% of the strong urban living preference here in our metro.
Again, the constantly shrinking vacancy rates, coupled with the faster-than-inflation rent and property price growth all point to an unmet demand for housing. A demand that was then studied, and determined to be some 450,000 people who want to live in the city from our metro right now.
This isn't a case of them just 'wanting it, but choosing not to', no, this is a case of them wanting it, but us not having enough supply to meet that need in nearly any form. Unmet demand means a rise in prices. Then only the people who can afford the high prices can afford to come in, while those who can't are pressed out, willingly or otherwise, and kept out. The people who can afford those prices have certain standards for amenities.
That doesn't mean that there isn't demand at the lower price points, with fewer requirements for amenities, but rather that the burdensome zoning regulations in place keep those kinds of projects artificially expensive. The only people who could afford them, wouldn't live in those places. The people who would live in those places, can't afford them.
Hence the concentration of construction on 'hot', generally 'good' neighborhoods.
When construction does come to the historically undesirable neighborhoods, it does so once the construction cost is either low enough to support the demand from lower-income people, or there is just so much pent up demand that the more wealthy people will make sacrifices in amenities to live there.
Note that the second option does not bring affordability with it.
When construction does come to the historically undesirable neighborhoods, it does so once the construction cost is either low enough to support the demand from lower-income people, or there is just so much pent up demand that the more wealthy people will make sacrifices in amenities to live there.
Note that the second option does not bring affordability with it.
Of course there are other options, too. For instance, folks can just go ahead and settle in what you've described as historically undesirable neighborhoods and start working to make things better. We've seen that happen a lot and it is going on now. In fact, many of these neighborhoods have a great history and they aren't undesirable at all.
Another option is for somebody to simply make the first move to start rebuilding an under-developed area. Look at Benteen, for example, or any number of neighborhoods around East Atlanta, Brookhaven, Inman Park and elsewhere.
In my opinion, it's not realistic to expect old intown areas to suddenly re-emerge as low cost, super-cool housing with wonderful amenities, first rate schools, zero crime issues and so forth. It takes time and hard work to create great communities. It also takes people willing to give it a shot. That's true in the suburbs as well in cities.
Of course there are other options, too. For instance, folks can just go ahead and settle in what you've described as historically undesirable neighborhoods and start working to make things better. We've seen that happen a lot and it is going on now. In fact, many of these neighborhoods have a great history and they aren't undesirable at all.
Another option is for somebody to simply make the first move to start rebuilding an under-developed area. Look at Benteen, for example, or any number of neighborhoods around East Atlanta, Brookhaven, Inman Park and elsewhere.
In my opinion, it's not realistic to expect old intown areas to suddenly re-emerge as low cost, super-cool housing with wonderful amenities, first rate schools, zero crime issues and so forth. It takes time and hard work to create great communities. It also takes people willing to give it a shot. That's true in the suburbs as well in cities.
Arjay, can you please identify these urban neighborhoods that are still affordable (even with poor schools / crime)?
I think you will find the neighborhoods you have in mind either already have shot up in price (and down in vacancy) or have the same restrictive, anti-urban zoning laws as other areas.
These price spikes even in mildly urban areas with bad schools and a history of crime is only further evidence that it is time to loosen the artificial restrictions on building new urban places.
People want more urban living options. Let's legalize them.
Arjay, can you please identify these urban neighborhoods that are still affordable (even with poor schools / crime)?
How about around here, jsvh? Looks like some good deals, close to the Beltline, mass transit, colleges and universities, major parks and the bright lights of downtown.
How about around here, jsvh? Looks like some good deals, close to the Beltline, mass transit, colleges and universities, major parks and the bright lights of downtown.
As always, the question is affordable to who? According to Zwillow, the West End neighborhood, which is pretty central to the area you linked, has a Median Home Value of $86,500. That's slightly lower than the peak values right before the bubble burst, an 18% increase over the last 5-years, and a 38% increase since the bottom in 2013.
Poking around the City Data income maps shows an average range of median houshold incomes in that area to be roughly between $18,000 and $30,000, with a low at $14,000 and a high at $40,000. Now, 'affordability' usually means that 80% of people can afford that price-point, but since I don't have income distributions, I'm going to have to work with the median, meaning only 50% can afford that price-point.
Using Zwillow's own housing affordability calculator, a household earning $18,000 a year, with no monthly debt payments, and with a 20% down payment, can only afford ~$66,000 in house. A household earning $30,000 a year, with no monthly debt payments, and with a 20% down payment, can afford ~$127,500 in house.
Now, what family earning $18,000 - $30,000 a year do you know that can show up with no debt and $17,300 in hand? Also keep in mind that a lot of those houses below the median price are 'fixer-uppers' and will need extensive rebuild and maintenance to get properly livable.
So, again I have to ask, who are you targeting when you say affordable? It certainly looks like the 80% designations are falling through here, with many households not able to reasonably afford to buy in their own neighborhood if they had to.
Even the city's median income starts having trouble picking up the non-fixer properties when you start factoring in things like low down-payment savings availability and debt.
Edit: And then you have to consider that housing costs are already changing. With the most recent assessor's update's in Fulton, much of that area is looking at a 100% - 200% assessment increase, with some areas (specifically near the BeltLine) looking at even higher increases.
Now, that's not a bad thing until you consider the lack of options available as alternatives.
Lots of stuff there, and a decent amount agrees with with what I've been saying this whole time. Check it all out, but here are some highlights:
While home prices are increasing back to pre-recessionary levels, housing inventory in metro Atlanta is constrained – partially due
to a lag in residential construction.
The rise in home prices that metro Atlanta has experienced since 2012 is in part a reflection of increased demand for housing in a
market that is short on supply.
All counties in metro Atlanta are experiencing the a decline in housing inventory.
Since 1999, overall, home prices have been rising faster than average wages...
Rents in the City of Atlanta have increased by some 57 percent since 2010, which is equal to the increase experienced in San Francisco over the same time period.
When looking at the extremely low income population, the affordability picture is particularly bleak. This segment of the population, where the average household income is around $17K annually, is vastly underserved, and over the past decade,
or so, units aimed at this segment have decreased significantly.
Over the next 10 years, some 55,000 units across metro Atlanta will have their affordability subsidies set to expire.
High poverty neighborhoods are more likely to have higher percentages of homes with negative equity.
Last edited by fourthwarden; 07-31-2017 at 03:57 PM..
How about around here, jsvh? Looks like some good deals, close to the Beltline, mass transit, colleges and universities, major parks and the bright lights of downtown.
But even there they still have the same density restrictions and parking minimums as other areas of town so you are only getting a very modest urban lifestyle that will still require a car for many situations.
Using Zwillow's own housing affordability calculator, a household earning $18,000 a year, with no monthly debt payments, and with a 20% down payment, can only afford ~$66,000 in house. A household earning $30,000 a year, with no monthly debt payments, and with a 20% down payment, can afford ~$127,500 in house.
Now, what family earning $18,000 - $30,000 a year do you know that can show up with no debt and $17,300 in hand? Also keep in mind that a lot of those houses below the median price are 'fixer-uppers' and will need extensive rebuild and maintenance to get properly livable.
Well, if we can keep housing in the $66-127K range I'm in favor of it. It looks like there are some options out there but as an area becomes more popular the prices tend to start going up.
There are certainly still some affordable areas left in the metro since we have so much land.
But the problem is there are no affordable truly urban areas (transit access, no parking min, no significant density restrictions) left in the city since we have artificially limited them to such small areas of the metro.
That lack of urban housing supply is something we need to change desperately.
Some cities have high prices because they are boxed in my mountains or water. We are boxed in by our own zoning laws, but that is something we can change.
Well, if we can keep housing in the $66-127K range I'm in favor of it. It looks like there are some options out there but as an area becomes more popular the prices tend to start going up.
Which is exactly why we need to allow increases in density and remove subressive zoning laws. We're already getting past your range in the 'affordable' parts of town, and have well blown past that in many once 'affordable' parts of town, with even more people wanting in, more people on the way, and with prices continuing to increase as a reflection of that.
That shouldn't be in just in singular areas, either. An across the board allowance of increased density is needed to meet pent up demand in the wide range of living conditions that people want.
The data's here. The solutions are known. We just need to actually get them done.
There are certainly still some affordable areas left in the metro since we have so much land.
But the problem is there are no affordable truly urban areas (transit access, no parking min, no significant density restrictions) left in the city since we have artificially limited them to such small areas of the metro.
That lack of urban housing supply is something we need to change desperately.
Some cities have high prices because they are boxed in my mountains or water. We are boxed in by our own zoning laws, but that is something we can change.
Well, color me old fashioned. I don't think it's necessary for a place to abandon parking requirements and density limitations to be urban, nor do I think it's mandatory to have mass transit access in order to be urban.
I understand the argument that areas like Ansley Park, Niskey Lake, Haynes Manor, Historic Brookhaven and Druid Hills are enclaves for selfish rich folks and that it's fairer to them to be broken up and redeveloped with inexpensive duplexes and high rise residential buildings.
And perhaps someday we will come to that.
But as matters stand, we've got vast areas of underdeveloped land sitting right next to world class heavy rail transit. Why we would want to destroy beautiful, successful, historic areas on the hope that it might somehow stimulate growth in other parts of town is beyond me.
Last edited by arjay57; 07-31-2017 at 08:21 PM..
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.
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.
