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.
Toronto was rated to have the most overvalued real estate in the world. San Fran is the most overvalued US city, followed by LA. NY and Boston are fairly valued. To no one’s surprise, Chicago is America’s best real estate value.
Toronto was rated to have the most overvalued real estate in the world. San Fran is the most overvalued US city, followed by LA. NY and Boston are fairly valued. To no one’s surprise, Chicago is America’s best real estate value.
I love Chicago and would live there in a second but it does have quite an image problem right now. Perhaps that's why it's undervalued.
Toronto is building high rises like they're going out of style. Perhaps that's why its overvalued.
I love Chicago and would live there in a second but it does have quite an image problem right now. Perhaps that's why it's undervalued.
Toronto is building high rises like they're going out of style. Perhaps that's why its overvalued.
When assessing value whether in stocks or in real-estate, there is basically two qualities. One is 'intrinsic' and the other is 'expectation.' It should be noted that both are subjective qualities.
But they both drive decisions. Intrinsic is what you think the value of your asset is today, and expected is what you expect your asset to be in the future. Even if you don't think your asset is worth X immediately, you may pay X right now if you expect it to be worth more than X sometime in the future.
When you have assets climbing for a while, eventually they begin to be driven by bandwagon effect. Real estate investors look at past trends, and they start to make wrong predictions on the future value of their property. This often signals a pop in the bubble for obvious reasons since both buyers and sellers get caught in this bandwagon effect (more inventory floods the market so sellers can cash in, and buyers begin paying outrageous prices based on very optimistic expected values - eventually this comes crashing as inventory cannot sell and expected values shift from very positive to negative).
After seeing too many friends I love have to move because they cant afford a modest house for $2 million+, Im of the mindset that the local Bay Area real estate market is overrun by greedy NIMBYs who refuse to allow building in the millions of acres of undeveloped land we have and at the same time oppose all new development. Where the hell do they expect people to live???
Toronto was rated to have the most overvalued real estate in the world. San Fran is the most overvalued US city, followed by LA. NY and Boston are fairly valued. To no one’s surprise, Chicago is America’s best real estate value.
It's only compared to six other cities in North America, two of which are in Canada. I can think of three major cities off the top of my mind that would be the best real estate market if compared to the same six pricey metros-Atlanta, DFW, and Houston, easily.
There were amazing deals to be had in Chicago back a few years ago. Things were definitely overvalued though around 2005-2007 and things have not gotten back to that peak, but in my mind that's ok, prices now in much of the city are very reasonable, although climbing quite a bit in select markets.
We got our condo in January 2015 for $580,000 right by Wrigley, things in that area didn't dip as much during the recession since it's always a high demand area, but we noticed things for around $500,000 right during the recession. Everything around us now is selling for around $700,000 for a 3 bedroom condo with three baths. So that's good appreciation during the past 3 years.
Chicago is highly split. From downtown though the north and northwest side it's somewhat pricey (given what you're comparing to of course). Two bedroom condos are around $250,000 to $450,000 and three bedroom condos and nice units are around $500,000 to $1,000,000 with actual homes going for $750,000 to many millions in decent areas with outlying bungalows for maybe $250,000 to $450,000. Depends on where you are in that large area.
meanwhile on the west and south sides home prices TANKED during the recession from like $170,000 to $80,000 and have barely really moved since then.
It doesn't make sense to look at Chicago as a whole, as 30% or so of the market is in the complete gutter, 30% of the market is stable and fairly affordable, and then 40% is gaining in prices and on the point of being quite unaffordable for the average income levels.
There are large areas of Chicago, perfectly stable and safe areas, with very affordable housing costs for what you would find in other dense urban areas with amenities and transit nearby.
After seeing too many friends I love have to move because they cant afford a modest house for $2 million+, Im of the mindset that the local Bay Area real estate market is overrun by greedy NIMBYs who refuse to allow building in the millions of acres of undeveloped land we have and at the same time oppose all new development. Where the hell do they expect people to live???
I've always been shocked at the LACK of new housing in San Francisco, given the high demand to get into the city.
Chicago has built three times as much new housing stock in the city as San Fran in the past 20 years, and arguably it would seem Chicago wouldn't have the demand (although it's certainly there in the 40% of the city everyone wants to get into, and then not in the 40% of the city everyone is leaving).
135,000 new units built in Chicago compared to 47,000 in San Francisco.
Last year saw the most housing built in San Francisco in a single year in the 20 years I looked at data, and it was only around 4,000 units. Chicago meanwhile with a falling population built over 9,000 new units.
I would think that's the main reason housing here is still such a good deal. They keep cranking out brand new housing with all the modern technology by the thousands in hundreds of new highrise, midrise and luxury single family homes.
Since 2000 the population has been estimated to have dropped here by 200,000 people - but at the same time well over 100,000 new housing units have been constructed. ha.
What holds San Francisco back so much from going ahead with large scale developments near transit to dump in a few thousand units at a time?
God, we have so many developments in the downtown area and west loop alone I can't even try to keep track. The west loop is a sea of cranes right now. Even by me in Lakeview there are 4 large developments with a few hundred units each within a 6 minute walk from my house.
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.
