Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Indianapolis is the most affordable city of its size in the country. Home prices and rental can't be found cheaper anywhere else. Even insurance rates in the area are kept low. The secret? I'm not entirely sure.
Perhaps they incarcerate their anti-development, anti-density, selfish, power-hungry Nimby's and let the developers have their way!
A surefire way to make any city more affordable: Kick out the Nimby's!
One item that will make a city more affordable is affordable mass transit.
The reason many people can afford to live in NYC is the incredibly affordable transit system.
Many/most do not have the burden of auto ownership.
Affordable transit also means I am not limited to my corner store for my survival and have many
more options for price shopping. Same with more employment options.
One item that will make a city more affordable is affordable mass transit.
The reason many people can afford to live in NYC is the incredibly affordable transit system.
Many/most do not have the burden of auto ownership.
A year's car cost anywhere else is a month's rent in NYC.
Quote:
Affordable transit also means I am not limited to my corner store for my survival and have many
more options for price shopping. Same with more employment options.
Unfortunately what you find in NYC is the grocery prices are high everywhere.
you find that Manhattan's incredibly high cost of living is mostly driven by housing, but it is higher than average in EVERY CATEGORY, including transportation. So is Brooklyn, so is Queens. The nearby, far more car dependent Newark-Elizabeth area (which is also urban) is much cheaper than Queens, in all categories.
In the Northeast, you are paying for all the people living off the state,
either as state dependents, or as state employees.
You are also paying for an entrenched class of rentiers, who own property,
and are collecting high rents.
If you want to save money, you need to go somewhere that these sorts of parasites
have not yet become well-entrenched.
That's not true at all.
We in the northeast are paying for all of the people in the south living off our state,so much that we can't afford to support the poor in our own state.
Sorry,I just hate it when someone writes things they know nothing about.
Because believe me,there are 2€ as many parasites in the south.
Lower taxes, lower insurance rates, less desirable areas of the country compared to the coast where most of the population is concentrated, not as densely populated as the east coast states, etc.
The cheapest state to live in within the whole country is Mississippi, home prices are ridiculously low there, very low desirability.
No way!
That's too country for my taste.
Plus,the education system.....
People love writing lengthy, detailed posts about how to fight sprawl or crime or other urban problems. But nobody has any ideas about this problem other than move somewhere else? That's disappointing. I don't expect to get Manhattan for the price of Boise, but surely, something can be done to make this much ignored and very real problem somewhat better.
It is a free market problem though, unless you want government to get involved to a greater degree.
Plenty of things could be done. Not saying these are wise ideas by any means, but just as an illustration that it's not 100% beyond the power of policy makers.
To increase supply:
Change zoning rules to encourage developers to tear down the old three/four floor buildings and build taller buildings.
Sell park land to developers.
Levy a special tax on low rise buildings.
Remove prohibitions on basement/rear apartments
Streamline local approval for all new development
To reduce demand: (and many of the above would do that as well)
Aggressively enforce immigration laws.
Increase local tax rates
Pay people to leave
For me park land is a quality of life issue though. Not sure I would like it to see it handed over to developers.
Over on city vs. city, Chicago is often touted as a relatively cheap, economically strong big city. Is there something fundamentally different about Chicago vs. New York?
One thing cities do, for those who like urban lifestyles, is substitute public amenities for private ones. Parks can substitute for yards. You don't necessarily need a large apartment for entertaining, you can do more of that in cafes and restaurants. Laundromats vs. home laundry machines. What all this means is that some things can be provided more cheaply in cities. Urban costs aren't necessarily as high as they can appear.
Cities also save on energy costs in several ways. Party wall buildings are more efficient. Distances are shorter, so transport costs are lower, and transport can happen in lower energy ways (e.g. walking).
While we're on this, dense low-mid rise building is cheaper than steel frame highrises. You can build a 5 or 6 story building with wood frame construction over concrete, and sell/rent it for far less than a steel frame highrise. You can achieve almost as much density this way as with highrises, because highrise is a less efficient building type.
Lastly, I'd caution against moralism about housing subsidies. Any of us paying off a mortgage and taking a tax deduction on that mortgage interest is getting a tax subsidy (one that's mostly captured by affluent households). The value of the mortgage interest deduction dwarfs what's been spent on affordable housing, or rent discounts from rent control.
The Midwest is cheaper than the rest of the country. Even in higher density, more urban areas. That won't change anytime soon. Also note that Chicago is the most expensive place in the Midwest, so for someone from Cleveland or Detroit, Chicago is quite expensive. It is a matter of perspective.
I'm not sure that's true. There's plenty of hip, young and cool in Chicago.
Honestly everything seems a bit cheaper there (cabs, public transit, rent, food, liquor).
Chicago is hip and cool if you grew up in the Midwest. If you're from either coast, not so much. Chicago was also a huge deal to Southerners in the Great Migration but might not be so much today.
Over on city vs. city, Chicago is often touted as a relatively cheap, economically strong big city. Is there something fundamentally different about Chicago vs. New York?
Yes. Chicago has lost about one-quarter of its population in the last 60 years while New York City has posted a slight gain. Supply and demand is rather different. The lack of population of decline for New York City is partly explainable by very heavy recent immigration in the last few decades making up for out-migration. Most don't have much money, but it does raise housing demand. New York City's median income is somewhat higher than Chicago, but the biggest difference between the two is New York City's distribution is top-heavy, with more earning high incomes. Detached home prices on the edges of New York City and suburbs are also higher than Chicago.
For New York City, the trendy city center areas (mostly but not only Manhattan) seem to have a bigger price differential over the rest of the city then Chicago (don't know enough about Chicago to say too much), higher demand for being unique, more money, etc. ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
