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.
I have been house hunting since the spring in the neighborhoods surrounding Uptown and I have been shocked at some of the bad choices that were made. The most obvious and frequent one is how low-rise apartment buildings can be right next to single-family homes. So you have many apartment units looking directly onto the backyards of these single-family homes. And so guess what? These houses that are for sale sit and sit and sit. Even in these dense neighborhoods, people expect to have more privacy than that. When I went to go look at some of them, I could see people in the units looking at me. No thanks. Does anyone know how this came to be? Were the apartments there first and people infilled with single-family homes? Or the other way around? Were they trying to avoid having blocks of just apartment buildings, fearing the sterility that would bring? There are stretches where maybe one side of the street is primarily apartment buildings and the other side is primarily single-family houses. That seems to work OK. But how they ever allowed the two types to be right next to each other is beyond me.
The second thing I've noticed is how the houses along Lyndale south of Lake Street are set back from the street. Obviously for noise abatement on a busy road, but the problem is when this is combined with a very large garage in the back that is setback from the alley, there is little to no backyard. Some places literally only have a concrete patio between the house and the garage. And once again, because of this, these houses remain unsold.
My point in both of these cases that these houses will continue to be undesirable and will be worth much less than the surrounding homes. They are the black eye of the neighborhood, keeping prices down for everyone else.
I have also seen a rambler on a corner lot that was built right up against the alleyway. First, the rambler looks completely out of place in that neighborhood and two, how the house was ever allowed to be built without any setback from the alley is beyond me.
I would gather that today's planning and zoning standards are a lot more careful and stringent, but I am just curious if some of these things I am seeing are considered mistakes today or were intentional and supported.
My last comment is that I am realizing that there are a lot of properties that need to be completely gutted down to the studs and redone. I know many of them already have, but there are so many more than could really benefit from a total re-do. I think this has happened to more houses in other more wealthy cities around the country and happens more slowly in Minneapolis because of what people can afford and because the prices of these homes are not yet high enough to cover the cost of a redo. But my point is that after going through many homes across all price ranges, there are many that have issues across the spectrum. Some structural but some are also just updating homes to how people live in them today. The benefit of gutting them, too, is that AC can be added at the same time. I notice time and time again that the homes without AC and without 2-car garages sit unsold for the longest.
Anyway, my comments from my lengthy housing search in the area.
I don't know - seems like these are more your personal preferences, rather than larger society-wide issues. Could be that you're just not going to find what you're after in Uptown at your price point.
I also have pretty different opinions on other things, too; what's wrong with being right up against the alley? I hope we have MORE of those houses, if we can allow "granny flats" out back in Uptown. And I've always liked a nice healthy mix of single family houses, duplexes, and apartment buildings.
Given the high prices of houses in Uptown, I don't think houses with small or no backyards or adjacent to apartment buildings are keeping prices down for everyone else.
I don't know - seems like these are more your personal preferences, rather than larger society-wide issues. Could be that you're just not going to find what you're after in Uptown at your price point.
I also have pretty different opinions on other things, too; what's wrong with being right up against the alley? I hope we have MORE of those houses, if we can allow "granny flats" out back in Uptown. And I've always liked a nice healthy mix of single family houses, duplexes, and apartment buildings.
Given the high prices of houses in Uptown, I don't think houses with small or no backyards or adjacent to apartment buildings are keeping prices down for everyone else.
I think a lot of people in the market in Minneapolis and other large cities prefer single family homes with at least a small backyard, instead of only a small concrete slab and a garage next to the alley. One reason people desire single family homes is to have a yard, even if it's small like many homes in Minneapolis.
Queenswake also brings up a good point regarding homes without central AC and a one car garage being on the market for a long time. These things are a deal breaker to a lot of people looking to buy.
I personally don't mind SFH's next to apartment buildings, but can understand why the lack of privacy would be a turnoff.
Since I'm new to the area, I'm curious to know when the housing market in Uptown exploded. I do enjoy the lakes and amenities on Lake St., Lyndale, etc, but I kind of feel like it's a bit overrated because there aren't that many "hip" districts in the Twin Cities. Maybe I'm wrong about this. Just something I've thought about.
The reason why so many in-town houses still have original electrical, windows, plumbing is that people buy them with the notion that they are going to fix them up, but then move out to the suburbs for better schools before they bother to do the remodeling. So it's like a perpetual stock of housing with 80 year old pipes and insulation. Even some of the super nice mansion level homes right on the lakes are basically white elephants because they need so much modernization work.
It's to the point where in the richer neighborhoods there's no point in remodeling these old grandma houses so they just knock the house down and build a new one. This has caused a lot of community consternation in the past few years in certain neighborhoods.
This doesn't just happen in uptown, you can find these houses in any neighborhood in Minneapolis or St. Paul.
I don't know why there are so many crappy low rise 1970s era apartment buildings scattered around in between single family homes. That is not uptown specific either, you see them in Northeast, St. Paul, even in 1st ring suburbs like Roseville.
All that said I don't think this is specific to Minneapolis. There are neighborhoods in Milwaukee that look very similar.
I see this mix of apartments and homes in many, many cities.
Regarding those 2&1/2 story apartments in Uptown, many were built back in the 1960s. I remember reading that the city was projecting a significant increase in population back then and had up-zoned several areas of the city to accommodate more units. Of course, the population actually continued to fall, but that's more due to declining household size and clearance of homes for freeways.
Since I'm new to the area, I'm curious to know when the housing market in Uptown exploded. I do enjoy the lakes and amenities on Lake St., Lyndale, etc, but I kind of feel like it's a bit overrated because there aren't that many "hip" districts in the Twin Cities. Maybe I'm wrong about this. Just something I've thought about.
It's been steadily going up (with some ups and downs) for decades now; I'm not sure that there was any particular explosion in home sale prices. In 1984, Calhoun Square opened; I feel like that was the dividing line between "old" and "new" Uptown, but I don't know if it had a big impact on housing prices. In the 2000s, there was a rush to convert apartments into condos; I'm no real estate expert, but I do think that contributed to the rapid rising of rental prices. I do think the new luxury apartments seem overrated, but the locations are really good, they often have nice views, and I suppose if you're looking for a new apartment (and don't want the 1920s or the 60s/70s apartments) outside of downtown and can afford it, they're a decent option.
I don't know if Uptown is "overrated," but I do think that you're right that there are so few comparable areas. I don't care about hipness, but do care about walkability combined with good public transportation, and we haven't found any other neighborhoods that offer as complete a package. Some areas are close (parts of Fulton or Linden Hills, parts of Marcy-Holmes), but those areas aren't any cheaper.
I think a lot of people in the market in Minneapolis and other large cities prefer single family homes with at least a small backyard, instead of only a small concrete slab and a garage next to the alley. One reason people desire single family homes is to have a yard, even if it's small like many homes in Minneapolis.
Queenswake also brings up a good point regarding homes without central AC and a one car garage being on the market for a long time. These things are a deal breaker to a lot of people looking to buy.
I personally don't mind SFH's next to apartment buildings, but can understand why the lack of privacy would be a turnoff.
Retrofit the house when you buy it so it has central air then! You'd be purchasing the home at a discount without it, or at full value with it -- either way you're paying for it.
Am I the only person who thinks these requests and entitlements are almost childlike? I don't mean to call people children but you can't seriously expect EVERYBODY else to adapt because YOU don't like something, right?
I have a better idea: try another city/suburb. I can't believe this is even discussion-worthy, to be honest! You know what, I never did like that some lots in Chicago and NYC didn't have a forest in the backyard -- I think I'm going to write a complaint to the City and see if the neighbors will approve of my ideals (my CORRECT ideals).
The reason why so many in-town houses still have original electrical, windows, plumbing is that people buy them with the notion that they are going to fix them up, but then move out to the suburbs for better schools before they bother to do the remodeling. So it's like a perpetual stock of housing with 80 year old pipes and insulation. Even some of the super nice mansion level homes right on the lakes are basically white elephants because they need so much modernization work.
It's to the point where in the richer neighborhoods there's no point in remodeling these old grandma houses so they just knock the house down and build a new one. This has caused a lot of community consternation in the past few years in certain neighborhoods.
This doesn't just happen in uptown, you can find these houses in any neighborhood in Minneapolis or St. Paul.
I don't know why there are so many crappy low rise 1970s era apartment buildings scattered around in between single family homes. That is not uptown specific either, you see them in Northeast, St. Paul, even in 1st ring suburbs like Roseville.
All that said I don't think this is specific to Minneapolis. There are neighborhoods in Milwaukee that look very similar.
Okay, you completely made up the part about the schools. Chances are if a house still has 80-year old electricity it's because it was -- and will continue to be -- a rental home. Much of (most of?) Uptown is rental housing -- most of it for U of M students.
I have lived in many such houses and in every instance they were rentals with stingy landlords who don't want to fix up the place. In fact, at least where I'm living, if you purchase a home and it's not intended to be rented out, you HAVE TO retrofit the electricity to modern standards. THAT is the reason why many houses in Shaker Heights, OH stay in such disrepair, despite being gems -- it's too expensive to retrofit and it's much more profitable to just lease to unknowing/uncaring tenants instead. And when the comp home values are only going for $150K-$250K, it's harder to justify a $50K-$75K retrofit. Perhaps the same types of rules apply in Uptown, but the justification would be a bit easier I'd think, and as the City continues to become hotter and more expensive it will continue to make sense to justify the cost of rehabbing an older home.
I just don't think it's as simple as: everybody wants to move to good schools in the suburbs. If that were possibly true, then why would a homeowner choose the Uptown Mpls home in the 1st place, knowing that there aren't great schools in that general vacinity (with or without the A/C and backyard)? I agree with the other part that it's cost-prohibitive to retrofit old homes, but it's even more cost-prohibitive to tear down a mansion and build a new one.
Last edited by Min-Chi-Cbus; 10-09-2014 at 08:37 AM..
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.
