In what cities do you get the most bang for your buck?

[Mini-apple-less]

Originally Posted by T. Damon

I've gone on real estate sites and poked around Minneapolis in what would seem like similar, desirable neighborhoods to mine; classic, upscale street car suburb adjacent downtown, nice bungalows and larger houses with nearby amenities and the prices actually don't seem so far off from here in San Diego, maybe $100-200k, or a larger house for the same. I know the average or median prices would be different but apples to apples not so much.

Never been to Minneapolis but friends who know me and have say I would like it. I hear the downtown is not that hopping though.

So would you say San Diego has higher quality housing than Minneapolis? I've always thought construction out West was shoddier than average, but who knows.

[MassVt]

Offhand, I'd say Pittsburgh and Minneapolis, for starters. Columbus and Cleveland should qualify, too.

[T. Damon]

Originally Posted by Mini-apple-less

So would you say San Diego has higher quality housing than Minneapolis? I've always thought construction out West was shoddier than average, but who knows.

No I wouldn't say that at all, in fact I'm pretty certain that the overall quality of homes there is better than here- we have thousands of cheap, small '50s-'70s homes that were built during the boom years.

I live in a hundred year old neighborhood- my sweet Spanish Revival is 87 y.o.- so the houses here compare to those of a similar era, and more substantial houses built during boom decades there. Even the ranchers there have basements and porches typically, and more robust construction overall. I've perused several shelter magazines and books showcasing some stunning homes there.

I'd say the tract houses built out in the burbs in each city the last couple of decades compare well to each other with an overall modest level of quality and construction. Ours are just more likely stucco and yours traditional or vinyl sided.