Interesting study on Gen Y housing preferences (Pittsburgh, Washington: insurance, new home)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Caladium

I agree, although I think it's a little of both. They wouldn't have bothered doing the study in the first place if they didn't want to figure out what people really wanted first and then provide it.

Yes, in retrospect my comment was a little too stark. My point was just that developers are operating in an environment where lots of other things besides consumer preferences affect their calculations, and they often try to sell consumers on a vision that they have predetermined makes sense for them economically. But consumer preferences aren't entirely irrelevant, and aren't completely subject to marketing pushes.

Cities, suburbs, country towns--they're all good in my book, especially in Pittsburgh, where many of the close in neighborhoods are tight knit.

I agree people can get too caught up in the distinctions between central cities, suburbs, towns, and so forth. It would be a good thing if more people lived in places where they could walk or bike to more things, use transit for more things, and have shorter commutes. But all that can happen in all of central cities, suburbs, and towns.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by JEB77

I think that's correct, although (1) government policies also contributed to the concentration of subsidized and low-income in cities, which acts as a counter-balance to other advantages that cities might offer some residents; and (2) people don't always know what they "really want," so the distinction between supply-induced demand and what people "really want" can be a fine one.

Agreed on both points. Various policies combined to make cities less attractive to many people as residential areas, although fortunately many of those policies are being reversed these days. And people are indeed somewhat flexible in their preferences, and tend to adapt themselves to what they can afford.

The upshot is that not only is our current housing market not a free and natural dynamic between developers and consumers, but the very idea of such a market is probably impossible. What we can do, however, is think carefully about the totality of the consequences when determining the relevant policies.

[XRiteMA98]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Again, a minivan seems like the better answer, particularly for people in wheelchairs, given they come with sliding doors and lower floors.

Oh, I got it all wrong then. I think I don't know the difference between a minvan and SUV. Sorry! I drive a pontiac vibe and only in weekends to shopping and that's the biggest car I can manage to parallel park. And I hate to drive. Driving is a waste of time for me; time that could be spent doing something else. I'm glad i can take the bus/T to work nowadays.
My boyfriend does all the driving.

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by erbfarm

I don't fit the Gen Y demographic at all (I'm early Gen X by the numbers) but I want exactly the same type of housing situation that they supposedly do. I've been living on a farm for the past 15 years and now I want a row house with a skinny yard within walking distance of a park, coffee shop, library, and good Thai restaurant in a neighborhood that has lots of block parties. If I didn't EVER have to drive anywhere, that would be terrific, but if I can at least ride my bike everywhere, I would be happy. So it's not just a Gen Y thing, I think a lot of people are craving living spaces and layouts that make it easier to connect with others.

You've described my place, Palo Alto in the Mexican War Streets exactly.

FWIW, I'm early 30s with the wife and kid and dog and cat and we love our home and neighborhood. We fit this demographic ideal described in the article perfectly I think. I grew up on Long Island, in the heart of endless suburbia and have no desire to ever cut a lawn again. I get giddy if I don't move my car for a week. It's self perpetuating as well as I have far less patience for sitting in traffic than I used to.

While I certainly agree this smaller, urban lifestyle is not for everyone, I think increasingly it's for more of us and I think that was the real takeaway for me.

[ML North]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

...developers are operating in an environment where lots of other things besides consumer preferences affect their calculations, and they often try to sell consumers on a vision that they have predetermined makes sense for them economically. But consumer preferences aren't entirely irrelevant, and aren't completely subject to marketing pushes.

Wouldn't this be true for virtually every product or service offered in an economy? All markets are regulated to a certain extent by laws, industrial and moral standards, and commodity pricing. In that regard buying and selling homes is no different than buying and selling cars, batteries, or underwear.

[normie]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

My point was just that developers are operating in an environment where lots of other things besides consumer preferences affect their calculations, and they often try to sell consumers on a vision that they have predetermined makes sense for them economically.

Ah, grasshopper, you are a wise one indeed. Sorry if I sound a little jaded, but I learned many decades ago that studies are often created by a company to help sell a product. Marketing 101. The best way to sell something is to release a study claiming that everyone else wants it.

[BrianTH]

Somewhat tangential, but a recent study found that pedestrian and bike infrastructure projects create more jobs per dollar than road projects:

Bike Lanes Create Twice As Many Jobs As Road Repair Work » INFRASTRUCTURIST

[normie]

Originally Posted by ML North

Wouldn't this be true for virtually every product or service offered in an economy?

Yup. Real estate developments are really no different from soft drinks or scotchtape. It's all about marketing, baby.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by ML North

Wouldn't this be true for virtually every product or service offered in an economy? All markets are regulated to a certain extent by laws, industrial and moral standards, and commodity pricing. In that regard buying and selling homes is no different than buying and selling cars, batteries, or underwear.

Oh sure. My point isn't to single out housing as an industry affected by government policies, but rather to make sure we are conscious of how all these policies affect land-use and housing patterns.

But you'll frequently see people claiming that if developers are doing X, that must be because housing consumers want X. It isn't that simple, and in fact there is good evidence that for quite a while certain sorts of housing were being oversupplied, and other sorts undersupplied, which contributed to the recent housing crisis, which fed the financial crisis and subsequent recession. And there are the longer term issues involving the environment, energy, water, public health, and so on.

[ML North]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

...there is good evidence that for quite a while certain sorts of housing were being oversupplied, and other sorts undersupplied, which contributed to the recent housing crisis, which fed the financial crisis and subsequent recession. And there are the longer term issues involving the environment, energy, water, public health, and so on.

Very good point.