As Pittsburgh home sales dip, no agreement on why (California: condominium, neighborhood)

[PghYinzer]

The article could easily have been written to read, sales up 7% in the city and 2% in the county (excluding city). It is worded in a way to make it sound like it turned negative, when in all truth it was up 15% over two years, so 7.5% on average per year, and then 7% again last year.

[WhoIsStanwix?]

Originally Posted by pittsburghaccuweather

Yep. I think you are onto something. Allegheny County housing jumped 2 percent outside of the city limits.

Here is probably what’s happening and it appears to benefit the suburbs. McKeesport already has the bones in place to fit this demographic.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...s-urban-exodus

Ironic that ye who calls all to “please provide a source” provides a source stating there aren’t any hard numbers to back up its claim and relies purely on anedotal evidence.

In fact, the article’s single attributable hard data source is a report by William Frey of the Brookings Institute which concludes the following:

The growth of young adults, ages 18-34, is somewhat higher in each of the suburban categories than the urban core. Not all of this growth is due to migration and, especially in the suburbs, it is partly due to younger millennials aging into the 18 to 34 year old young adult category over the 2010-15 period. Nonetheless, these rates show that the young adult population has been growing in all parts of the metropolitan area.

[gg]

Originally Posted by UKyank

.... ‘nah, that can’t be it’ as it continues to bring in millions for an ill defined s̶l̶u̶s̶h̶ fund operated by the ever so shady URA

They sure do seem shady. Geez.

[Paul2421]

Originally Posted by PghYinzer

The article could easily have been written to read, sales up 7% in the city and 2% in the county (excluding city). It is worded in a way to make it sound like it turned negative, when in all truth it was up 15% over two years, so 7.5% on average per year, and then 7% again last year.

yeah overall i agree this definitely isn't a cause and effect relationship, or even that less sales is a bad thing. there is definitely high demand in the city, but i think the city needs to do better attracting the late 20's residents that are starting to have kids and can't afford to live in the best feeder zones in a move-in ready house.

[WhoIsStanwix?]

Originally Posted by Paul2421

yeah overall i agree this definitely isn't a cause and effect relationship, or even that less sales is a bad thing. there is definitely high demand in the city, but i think the city needs to do better attracting the late 20's residents that are starting to have kids and can't afford to live in the best feeder zones in a move-in ready house.

What you describe is the quintessential chicken and egg problem. Parents want better schools so they move away. Schools can’t get better without supportive families. The cycle continues until some critical mass is reached.

[PGH423]

Originally Posted by PghYinzer

The article could easily have been written to read, sales up 7% in the city and 2% in the county (excluding city). It is worded in a way to make it sound like it turned negative, when in all truth it was up 15% over two years, so 7.5% on average per year, and then 7% again last year.

Exactly

[jea6321]

Originally Posted by pittsburghaccuweather

If the low inventory is the problem, why aren’t builders jumping on this opportunity to build new construction on the many vacant lots throughout the city? The Pittsburgh area has the least amount of newly constructed homes at anytime in recent memory. This was according to data complied by Pitt economic professor Chris Briem.

Is the demand really that great or is it just that everybody is looking in a handful of neighborhoods?

because new construction is very costly when complete. the major pent up demand is in the 200-300k range mainly from first time buyers. A builder in the city most certainly will be charging 400k+ when complete and possibly much more. Also, the tons of vacant lots are mostly in areas where the cost to build is more than the completed project is worth. A 2x4 cost the same price when used in lawrenceville as it does in beltzhoover.

[_Buster]

^ exactly, it takes time, and investments over time, for neglected areas to gentrify to the point where new construction is warranted. It is a process where confidence has to build among the public that a certain locale will prosper in the future. Not an easy thing to do.

Laughable that certain people think just because average demand is fairly high throughout some areas of the city/county, that almost any vacant lot in the city should be seeing construction.

[Paul2421]

Originally Posted by WhoIsStanwix?

What you describe is the quintessential chicken and egg problem. Parents want better schools so they move away. Schools can’t get better without supportive families. The cycle continues until some critical mass is reached.

for sure. this isn't a problem unique to pittsburgh at all, but i think it is a bigger concern because it is so easy to live in a very highly rated district and still be close to the action.

[kettlepot]

The low inventory discussion piqued my interest, so I did some investigating, and offer a comparison of 5 cities: San Francisco, San Diego, Columbus, Charlotte and Pittsburgh.

San Francisco and San Diego are two obviously supply constricted cities (and I live in San Diego so I was interested in the comparison ). Charlotte and Columbus are two cities without the land supply constraints of California with Columbus being a geographic peer of Pittsburgh without Pittsburgh's issues with secular decline.

Using realtor.com, I compared the For Sale inventory of houses and condominiums within the city limits on 8/7/18 rounded to the nearest 100, and the 2017 population estimate from Wikipedia rounded to the nearest 1000.

San Francisco
Population: 884k
Inventory: 900
982 residents to each house/condo for sale

San Diego
Population: 1420k
Inventory: 2700
526 residents to each house/condo for sale

Columbus
Population: 879k
Inventory: 2500
352 residents to each house/condo for sale

Charlotte
Population: 859k
Inventory: 4400
195 residents to each house/condo for sale

Pittsburgh
Population: 302k
Inventory: 3300
92 residents to each house/condo for sale

The conclusion I have is that supply constraints aren't the issue driving down sales, but buyer pickiness could be. Perhaps, for so many years Pittsburgh buyers had the pick of the lot and now they don't. While that might feel like a supply constraint to buyers, objectively it really isn't. Still, I understand it's all a matter of perspective, but a supply constrained market looks more like San Francisco and San Diego which have 5x to 10x more people per house on the market.