Why Is Philly Cheaper Than Other East Coast Cities? (Philadelphia: attorney, neighborhoods)

[2e1m5a]

Originally Posted by OleSchoolFool

i still think thats not the main factor, dc exploded in growth so there is not enuff housin plus the height limit really limits the ability to build in dc so eryth has to be outside and theres only so much space outside thats close enuff to jobs and not far from public transportation, which is pretty limited in the dc area (traffic is very bad there so drivin to jobs is hard)
not to say that wealth is a non factor, it def is, but its not the main one

That is very true. It definitely plays a factor that cities like Boston, DC and San Francisco are only 50 Square Miles.
Philadelphia is a city built for over 2 Million people and has almost 150 Square Miles, of which almost 50 Square Miles is pretty depressed economically, something not present in Boston or SF. The rest of the city is pretty comparable in COL, but still cheaper and there are also middle and working class neighborhoods in addition to the high rent areas, again something becoming non-existent in those cities.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by OleSchoolFool

i still think thats not the main factor, dc exploded in growth so there is not enuff housin plus the height limit really limits the ability to build in dc so eryth has to be outside and theres only so much space outside thats close enuff to jobs and not far from public transportation, which is pretty limited in the dc area (traffic is very bad there so drivin to jobs is hard)
not to say that wealth is a non factor, it def is, but its not the main one

That has nothing to do with why DC is more expensive than Philadelphia. Everything is more expensive down there, not just housing. And the exorbitant cost of housing is due to the fact that DC is full of ballers.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by 2e1m5a

That is very true. It definitely plays a factor that cities like Boston, DC and San Francisco are only 50 Square Miles.
Philadelphia is a city built for over 2 Million people and has almost 150 Square Miles, of which almost 50 Square Miles is pretty depressed economically, something not present in Boston or SF. The rest of the city is pretty comparable in COL, but still cheaper and there are also middle and working class neighborhoods in addition to the high rent areas, again something becoming non-existent in those cities.

DC and Boston are not geographically constrained. It's not like houses decrease in price once you leave the city limits (heading out to Bethesda or Arlington anyway). And then how do you explain housing prices in more desirable areas of these cities (Georgetown, Back Bay, the Haight) being significantly more expensive than desirable areas of Philly?

[OleSchoolFool]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

DC and Boston are not geographically constrained. It's not like houses decrease in price once you leave the city limits (heading out to Bethesda or Arlington anyway). And then how do you explain housing prices in more desirable areas of these cities (Georgetown, Back Bay, the Haight) being significantly more expensive than desirable areas of Philly?

becuz DC and Boston have the strongest economies in the country and many people wan move there cuz of jobs, philly job market is weaker, and philly has more housing options even in desirable areas, DC and Boston are constrained, DC-height limit, limited public transportation, Boston-peninsula and nimby laws that prevent building a lot of dense housing
the fact that DC and Boston have more rich people than Philly is only part of the reason why they are more expensive and yes other things are more expensive there too becuz a lot of rich people can afford it, but the main difference when it comes to COL is housing

[2e1m5a]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

DC and Boston are not geographically constrained. It's not like houses decrease in price once you leave the city limits (heading out to Bethesda or Arlington anyway). And then how do you explain housing prices in more desirable areas of these cities (Georgetown, Back Bay, the Haight) being significantly more expensive than desirable areas of Philly?

Supply. Philadelphia has more, it really is the "city of homes", even if most of these are rowhomes.
1.5 Million in a city for over 2 Million. Boston has over 600,000 in a city meant for 800,000. DC is almost exactly the same. So, while they are all about the same capacity rate, Philadelphia has more overall vacancy while having nearly the same metro size. People want to live in or within reasonably easy access to the core of the city, regardless of the Metro. The Metro areas are all about the same size, yet Boston and DC have much smaller cities. This drives the prices up, with it really exaggerated in the most desirable areas.

There are economically depressed areas in Philly that have been deindustrialized much later than NYC and Boston, with some catching up to do. DC is an outlier of sorts and is hard to compare on this front since so much of what goes on is manufactured by the Government in a way more pronounced than other cities. It never was heavily industrialized to begin with. Today it seems so much of the growth is fueled by the massive military industrial complex as well as just Government expansion in general. Many new buildings visible from the highway that seem to largely be defense corporations.

Boston is geographically constrained in that it is physically on the coast. DC is odd in that so much of the economy is manufactured and not organic. Boston and Philly are much easier to compare.

[MikeNigh]

Originally Posted by 2e1m5a

Supply. Philadelphia has more, it really is the "city of homes", even if most of these are rowhomes.
1.5 Million in a city for over 2 Million.

based on wikipedia..... Philadelphia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

in 1960 there were 2,002,512
in 2011 there were 1,536,471

Always wondered how that odd fact was going to effect things... How can you have price wars over homes when people are still desperately trying to sell empty ones?

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by 2e1m5a

Supply. Philadelphia has more, it really is the "city of homes", even if most of these are rowhomes.
1.5 Million in a city for over 2 Million. Boston has over 600,000 in a city meant for 800,000. DC is almost exactly the same. So, while they are all about the same capacity rate, Philadelphia has more overall vacancy while having nearly the same metro size. People want to live in or within reasonably easy access to the core of the city, regardless of the Metro. The Metro areas are all about the same size, yet Boston and DC have much smaller cities. This drives the prices up, with it really exaggerated in the most desirable areas.

Nah, I really don't think that's it at all. It's driven more by demand than supply with salaries and wages being considerably higher in the DC Metro area. As the poster PaytonC wrote about Chicago in a different thread:

Essentially, a lot of people have posted about the supply side of housing prices -- but there's also a demand side as well. Chicago's relative lack of super-wealthy people, who pull up the price of housing for everyone, helps keep prices here in check. Housing in the "boutique cities" (Manhattan, SF's core, etc.) is almost subject to a resort-town effect: there are substantial numbers of people there who will pay any price to get in (particularly within a very small core area), and thereby displace demand from those who "have" to live there. That isn't the case here.

I think this also applies to Philly. There simply aren't enough people in Philadelphia who could afford to buy a home at DC or SF prices. That's why prices are lower.

Originally Posted by 2e1m5a

There are economically depressed areas in Philly that have been deindustrialized much later than NYC and Boston, with some catching up to do. DC is an outlier of sorts and is hard to compare on this front since so much of what goes on is manufactured by the Government in a way more pronounced than other cities. It never was heavily industrialized to begin with. Today it seems so much of the growth is fueled by the massive military industrial complex. Many new buildings visible from the highway that seem to largely be defense corporations.

What does that have to do with anything? Either money is in your pocket or it's not. Do you think any woman is going to care whether your $200,000 salary comes from Booz Allen or Google? That's completely immaterial.

Originally Posted by 2e1m5a

Boston is geographically constrained in that it is physically on the coast.

Huh? Boston is not anymore constrained than Houston or Mobile, Alabama. And its a rather sprawling metro area, so it's not like there's absolutely no land to build on.

Originally Posted by 2e1m5a

DC is odd in that so much of the economy is manufactured and not organic. Boston and Philly are much easier to compare.

Again, I don't see how that's relevant.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by MikeNigh

based on wikipedia..... Philadelphia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

in 1960 there were 2,002,512
in 2011 there were 1,536,471

Always wondered how that odd fact was going to effect things... How can you have price wars over homes when people are still desperately trying to sell empty ones?

Boston and DC also lost 25 percent of their population. But yet prices in those cities went up.

And it's not always the case that houses sit around empty as it is that household sizes are smaller than what they were in 1950. The people fueling the housing market in coastal cities in 2012 are bankers, doctors and lawyers, not mechanics and dockworkers with a family of six.

[2e1m5a]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

Nah, I really don't think that's it at all. It's driven more by demand than supply with salaries and wages being considerably higher in the DC Metro area. As the poster PaytonC wrote about Chicago in a different thread:

I think this also applies to Philly. There simply aren't enough people in Philadelphia who could afford to buy a home at DC or SF prices. That's why prices are lower.

Supply and Demand go hand in hand. There may be the same demand, but because there is more supply in Philadelphia it drives the costs down. And again, the wages being higher in DC have everything to do with it being a manufactured economy.

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

What does that have to do with anything? Either money is in your pocket or it's not. Do you think any woman is going to care whether your $200,000 salary comes from Booz Allen or Google? That's completely immaterial.

It shows that DC's growth and high wages are manufactured and not organic or representative of a true market. This is why the COL and wages do not add up in DC. Philadelphia and Boston (although to a slightly less degree) are more representative of a true organic economy.

Also, Look at the Home ownership rates in each city:
Philly: 52.82%
DC: 36.83%
Boston: 30.65%

Boston and DC have a much higher rate of rental properties (income producing properties) and a much more prevalent rental market which drive the price of owning a home up. Again, because the supply is so much less in those cities.

[drive carephilly]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

Boston and DC also lost 25 percent of their population. But yet prices in those cities went up.

And it's not always the case that houses sit around empty as it is that household sizes are smaller than what they were in 1950.

You just solved your own conundrum. Population went down at the same time vacancies went down. It's because fewer people were taking up more space.

Philadelphia has 40,000 vacant lots and even more vacant houses.