Million-Dollar home sq footage: Pittsburgh ranks #8 (California: 2014, condos, how much)

[Copanut]

Just ran the MLS, in the last 12 months 66 homes in Allegheny County have sold within a range of $999,500-3.5 Million.

[gg]

Originally Posted by selltheburgh

Only 5 homes sold for over 1 Million in the city in the last 12 months

Wow, 808 Morewood sure is an interesting place. I guess I have been around Pittsburgh real estate so long that I just CRAVE a contemporary and that is one heck of a home! That would be my pick.

[Copanut]

Did a reboot, seeing 33 homes sold in Shadyside and SH ranging from 725,000-1.29 Million in the last 12 months.

How can anyone afford to live in the city? I'm sticking with Wilmerding.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

With all due respect some of us desire much more than just "square footage". I don't care if I can get a much larger house in Pittsburgh than I could in San Francisco for the same price point IF locations, for example, weren't comparable. Looking at the example I'm presuming that McMansion is on a sidewalkless cul-de-sac way out in a gated "McFartsyPants Estates" a half-hour outside the city limits. I'm presuming the latter picture in San Francisco depicts a home on a sidewalked city street that is walkable to restaurants, professional offices, nightlife, cultural opportunities, shopping, etc.

Let's compare apples to apples, shall we? What can $1,000,000 get you in McMurray or Cranberry Township vs. $1,000,000 in an EXURB 30-45 minutes outside of San Francisco? What can $1,000,000 get you in a desirable neighborhood in San Francisco vs. a desirable neighborhood in Pittsburgh (let's say Shadyside)? I'm certain the housing market here is still MUCH less expensive, especially since San Francisco is home to one of the nation's most exorbitantly-priced housing markets, but with that being said it's unfair to say "$1,000,000 will only get you a sub-2,000-square-foot home in a walkable city neighborhood in San Francisco while $1,000,000 will stretch to afford you a much larger McMansion in a non-walkable exurban neighborhood of Pittsburgh".

Location, location, location. There's a reason why it costs more to live in Shadyside than Lincoln Place or to live in Wexford rather than Ross Township.

Let's put this into perspective for you. If you lived in San Fran, you would not be able to afford a prime location area and you would be sharing an apartment with 6 other people with little prospect of ever owning a home. One and two bedrooms are 3k to 5k in San Fran. Renting a room in a house or apartment is $800 to $1000. That's perspective of location, location, location and why you truly do have it good in Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh's trendiest neighborhood doesn't have a million dollar tiny townhouse. Perhaps Julie will elaborate.

[LillyJo]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Agreed. With that being said people don't really care about the aesthetics of the exterior of a home anymore, judging by what I see on House Hunters. Many will tour ghastly-looking cookie-cutter suburban neighborhoods and "ooohhh" and "ahhhh" at them.

I wish this was still the gilded age of architecture where people wanted to build homes that they could be proud to show off and that would stand the test of time. Many 1950s-era neighborhoods already look terribly "dated" (i.e. Stanton Heights) and have lost their luster as a result. Will 1990s-era vinyl-clad "Maronda" neighborhoods stand the test of time, or will they, too, look "dated" by the 2040s? Neighborhoods like Shadyside, Mexican War Streets, Squirrel Hill, Polish Hill, and Lawrenceville all largely feature homes from the mid-1800s on up to the early-1900s, and nobody thinks of these places as being "dated" because homes were built beautifully instead of with the attidude of "slap 'em up quick for a quick buck".

Those nice looking houses from the 1800's until the early 1900'st were built by the wealthy, the very wealthy. Today's wealthy build some pretty amazing homes too. The vast majority of people in the past lived in tenements with many people packed into each one, many generations and extended families living in each one. Or they lived in farm houses that were made of wood from the land, very small and very ugly. In the 1950's people built and lived in small houses without much in the way of ornamentation because that's all they could afford. The builders don't choose the style of houses or the size. The market does. Builders build what sells. They build what people want to buy and can afford to buy.

[LillyJo]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Agreed. With that being said people don't really care about the aesthetics of the exterior of a home anymore, judging by what I see on House Hunters. Many will tour ghastly-looking cookie-cutter suburban neighborhoods and "ooohhh" and "ahhhh" at them.

I wish this was still the gilded age of architecture where people wanted to build homes that they could be proud to show off and that would stand the test of time. Many 1950s-era neighborhoods already look terribly "dated" (i.e. Stanton Heights) and have lost their luster as a result. Will 1990s-era vinyl-clad "Maronda" neighborhoods stand the test of time, or will they, too, look "dated" by the 2040s? Neighborhoods like Shadyside, Mexican War Streets, Squirrel Hill, Polish Hill, and Lawrenceville all largely feature homes from the mid-1800s on up to the early-1900s, and nobody thinks of these places as being "dated" because homes were built beautifully instead of with the attidude of "slap 'em up quick for a quick buck".

The old houses that didn't stand the test of time have been torn down. Only the very rich could afford those fancy houses that they could be proud of and show off. The average Joe in Pittsburgh could never have lived in a house like that.

[LillyJo]

Originally Posted by RyanR

Here 'ya go.

706 S Aiken Ave, Shadyside, PA 15232 - Home For Sale and Real Estate Listing - realtor.com®

Shadyside (since that's what SCR wanted for a PGH location).

$975K

4BR, 3.5 bath, 2BR apartment on 3rd floor.

Lots of other pics at the link.

Looks like a Washington Redskins fan lives there!

[Copanut]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

So for $1,000,000 you could have an average city home in San Francisco or a nice home in the suburbs. For $1,000,000 in Pittsburgh you could have a very nice home in the city or a palace in the suburbs.

Bingo!

[FreightTrainRunning]

Originally Posted by LillyJo

The old houses that didn't stand the test of time have been torn down. Only the very rich could afford those fancy houses that they could be proud of and show off. The average Joe in Pittsburgh could never have lived in a house like that.

This. Most of the cheap worker tenements are long gone and many of the nicer houses remain. Survivorship bias.

Interestingly, most of the really huge mansions are long gone too either because they were too expensive to maintain or were built on too valuable land.

[robrobrob]

Sure you get more house for the buck here than in San Fran but far fewer people can afford the million dollar house here.

The one Braeburn was bought by the Executive VP of Operations for Heinz. The one on Morewood was bought by a designer who splits time between NY and Pittsburgh. The Beechwood house was bought by a Federated Grand child. The one on Devon by two doctors, a father and son, one of which appears to be the Head of Immunolgy at UPMC. The last one isn't as clear but it looks like it was bought by a trust set up by s San Francisco investment banker and his partner.

My point is that so many more people can afford a million dollar house in the Bay Area than in Pittsburgh. Million dollar houses are a dime a dozen out there. A friend is an engineer out there and and makes 250-300,000. How many engineers make that here? An average guy or girl has a decent shot at affording a million dollar house out there but here there is usually a story.