Bad news for those in market to buy a new home - San Antonio is most over valued market in nation (Howe: sale, real estate market)

[nismospec]

Originally Posted by Azure110

San Antonio would never (in our lifetimes) be "trendy" but it is sure getting expensive. Please stop promoting the current growth rate of San Antonio as a positive thing too. It is not. It is far exceeding the limits of San Antonio's infrastructure.

Far, far, exceeding the limits of infrastructure.
I'm all for growth, but not when the infrastructure can't keep up. But that's a whole different thread.

[L210]

The rate of growth doesn't only depend on how many people are moving to a particular place. It is relative to how many people are already there. Since Austin has a few hundred thousand less people than San Antonio, having 7,000 more new residents than SA each year makes a significant difference in the rate of growth. Austin could have exactly the same number of new residents each year and still have a higher growth rate than SA. But, I believe that most of the growth is in the metro area rather than the city.

Let's look at a more extreme comparison. Kyle had about 5,000 people in 2000. It now has about 40,000 people. Adding 35,000 more people is nothing for a large city, but that amount of growth for a small city like Kyle results in a crazy high growth rate. At one point, I think it was the fastest growing or one of the fastest growing cities in the country.

[rynetwo]

Originally Posted by Azure110

San Antonio would never (in our lifetimes) be "trendy" but it is sure getting expensive. Please stop promoting the current growth rate of San Antonio as a positive thing too. It is not. It is far exceeding the limits of San Antonio's infrastructure.

For something to be positive or negative is very subjective. I am all for the transplants moving in to San Antonio bringing their wallets that have now afforded this city a burgeoning culinary scene and far better shopping options.

Originally Posted by Juventud Guerrero

I get your point but I think it is not accurate to compare San Antonio's growth to Austin's. Here's why:

1. Austin has a lot smaller land area therefore there is more people coming in competing for less space.

2. A lot of the people moving to Austin are "hipsters" for lack of a better word. This means that more of the people that move to Austin only want to live in the center or atleast close to it, and they're willing to pay inflated amounts of money in order to do that.

This is in contrast to San Antonio's growth; yes there may be some people like that moving into San Antonio's urban center, but I think on a much smaller scale, as more of the people moving into San Antonio are working people, retirees, and especially families.

This means that many of the people moving to San Antonio are moving to different parts of the city and not all just trying to compete to live in the core or near it.

I really think that San Antonio's working class population is way too big and has been in the city for way too long to ever start getting displaced like what is happening in Austin. I repeat I think it's just a bunch of people panicking at seeing natural price increases due to inflation over time,etc.

At least for my lifetime I never see San Antonio being anything different than it is now: an affordable, low-key city that most anyone can make it in. And I see that as a good thing.

Austin and San Antonio have the same terrible sprawl. Do you realize from San Marcos to to Georgetown is 70 miles? (that is the Austin metro limits.

If you go by urbanized areas Austin has a population of 1,362,416 with a density of 2,604.8 people per square mile. San Antonio has a population of 1,758,210 with a density of 2,944.6. Both cities are very low density sunbelt cities, but both are trying to rapidly density their urban core.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...es_urban_areas

Again, a lot of your post is based on your perception but the facts are a little different. Your perceptions are shared by many which is why San Antonio will not be trendy like Austin. Honestly I am fine with San Antonio being in Austins shadows. Could you imagine growing even faster?

Originally Posted by L210

The rate of growth doesn't only depend on how many people are moving to a particular place. It is relative to how many people are already there. Since Austin has a few hundred thousand less people than San Antonio, having 7,000 more new residents than SA each year makes a significant difference in the rate of growth. Austin could have exactly the same number of new residents each year and still have a higher growth rate than SA. But, I believe that most of the growth is in the metro area rather than the city.

Let's look at a more extreme comparison. Kyle had about 5,000 people in 2000. It now has about 40,000 people. Adding 35,000 more people is nothing for a large city, but that amount of growth for a small city like Kyle results in a crazy high growth rate. At one point, I think it was the fastest growing or one of the fastest growing cities in the country.

My issues with population being measured by percentage is Austin is growing way faster than Houston by percentage, Houston 1.881% versus Austin 2.918% change from 2015 to 2016, but in reality Houston added 125,005 people versus Austin's 58,301.

What percentage is good for is it does let you know how well a city might be able to absorb the new transplants.

https://www.recenter.tamu.edu/data/p...und_Rock%2C_TX

[L210]

Originally Posted by rynetwo

My issues with population being measured by percentage is Austin is growing way faster than Houston by percentage, Houston 1.881% versus Austin 2.918% change from 2015 to 2016, but in reality Houston added 125,005 people versus Austin's 58,301.

That's kind of my point. Most articles and local governments will focus on percentage change because it best illustrates the amount of change a city is seeing relative to its size. Larger numbers of people moving to larger cities is to be expected, but the numbers may not be large enough to lead to drastic change.

[Bo]

Since this discusison seems to persist, I just want to say that I disagree with the editorial in the title.

Bad news for those in market to buy a new home - San Antonio is most over valued market in nation

The market is the market. A $250K home that goes on the market for $250K and sells for $250K is a $250K home. Period. For everyone who buys and sells into that market, that's just the reality. It's not "bad news" for buyers, it's just what things cost at this snapshot in time. Once buyers buy in, unless the bottom falls out for some reason that no one I've heard of is anticipating, they'll be able to sell their homes for more than they paid for them. The article in the OP fails to make that case.

To suggest anything else, without presenting a case for some reason that home prices are going to drop, is just needless fearmongering.

[Proffer]

Bo, yes you are right that the homes are worth what people are currently paying for them. By stating that San Antonio is overpriced in terms of fundamentals, the article is just suggesting that the prices are out of line, on average, for local people, on local salaries. It's probably equity coming from elsewhere that is making the sales prices possible, in general (i.e., not in all cases).

[L210]

Originally Posted by Bo

Since this discusison seems to persist, I just want to say that I disagree with the editorial in the title.



The market is the market. A $250K home that goes on the market for $250K and sells for $250K is a $250K home. Period. For everyone who buys and sells into that market, that's just the reality. It's not "bad news" for buyers, it's just what things cost at this snapshot in time. Once buyers buy in, unless the bottom falls out for some reason that no one I've heard of is anticipating, they'll be able to sell their homes for more than they paid for them. The article in the OP fails to make that case.

To suggest anything else, without presenting a case for some reason that home prices are going to drop, is just needless fearmongering.

It all depends on who you're focusing on. If you're focusing on the overall market, then this is a good thing. If you're focusing on the middle class, lower-middle class, and working class who are now priced out of owning a home, then this is a bad thing. It makes it more difficult for these people to build wealth and change their socioeconomic status.

[Bo]

Originally Posted by L210

It all depends on who you're focusing on. If you're focusing on the overall market, then this is a good thing. If you're focusing on the middle class, lower-middle class, and working class who are now priced out of owning a home, then this is a bad thing. It makes it more difficult for these people to build wealth and change their socioeconomic status.

I see affordability as an important issue, but a different issue than valuation. When I moved to SA, developers along 1604 were putting up neighborhoods with new homes starting in the $40,000s. You don't see much of the low-end of new development at comparably low pricing anymore, for what I understand are home-financing industry reasons. (It's harder for people shopping at that price point to qualify for loans now.) I did actually see a sub-$100K new development in the Converse area recently, but nowadays most sub-$100K homes are not new.

[L210]

Originally Posted by Bo

I see affordability as an important issue, but a different issue than valuation. When I moved to SA, developers along 1604 were putting up neighborhoods with new homes starting in the $40,000s. You don't see much of the low-end of new development at comparably low pricing anymore, for what I understand are home-financing industry reasons. (It's harder for people shopping at that price point to qualify for loans now.) I did actually see a sub-$100K new development in the Converse area recently, but nowadays most sub-$100K homes are not new.

When used homes are going for much higher prices, then it is an affordability issue. People can't even afford to buy a used home in a decent neighborhood.

[hindsight2020]

it's socioeconomic displacement by transplant proxy. The existential question is of course, should transplants have the ability to displace those who came before by socioeconomically shoving the already established. I believe California attempted to address that issue via prop 13. This is all a variation of NIMBY dynamics of course.

This is why the affordability question should always be viewed as a function of median income vice median house price. Most TX metros are out of whack on that front. This demonstrates either a willingness to make house-poor choices, or the aforementioned de facto gentrification, or a combination of both as the former attempts to keep up with the latter.