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.
Interesting article on how the demand for "urban" housing is outstripping the supply. The guesstimate is that 30-40% of the market of potential home buyers wants more urban, and the more urban only represents 5-10% of the available housing. (In this case urban is code word for more walkable.)
This is totally true in Oakland. I live in a more walkable section with 60s era condos. The prices for condos in my area are actually 2X more expensive than the newer ones in the gated community (with a tennis court and more amenities) a few miles down the road in a more suburban area that isn't walkable at all.
The single family homes in the more walkable areas are 2-3x more expensive than the ones in the not walkable areas (these areas are also way safer.....) The newest up and coming areas, that have decently walkable main streets are 2X as expensive as their peers in without access to the walkable main street, even with comparable crime rates.
We definitely don't have a housing shortage... we may just be now wading our way through the glut built up during the boom. But real estate is location dependent, just because there is a glut in housing overall doesn't tell you anything about a specific market. Oakland or San Francisco have shortages. Suburban silicon valley has shortages. Chicago you've got hundreds of houses in urban areas with easy access to transit that cost less than $100,000. That doesn't mean there is a glut of housing inside the Loop.
You can't draw the conclusions the article draws if you're intelligent and unbiased.
For example, they show a picture of a carefully manicured suburb and say "too much." No, that's not true.
And then the show a picture of an abandoned urban area and say "this is technically urban but doesn't count."
Very clearly there's too much urban (or too much of the wrong kind) or that block wouldn't be abandoned. Also it's pretty clear there isn't too much suburban where that particular picture was taken, or at least not very much too much.
Moreover, overall doesn't help at all. Even if there is no urban housing shortage for the nation as a whole, what does that have to do with anything? Should we not build more urban housing in areas where there clearly is a shortage (Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, NYC areas) because there isn't in Detroit? That's just dumb. San Francisco's solution (clear lack of housing) is different than Cleveland where there's other problems, built environment and otherwise.
We have plenty of housing in the US, but not necessarily well lined up with what people want. For example not enough urban housing near Silicon Valley. For every San Francisco with 40 applicants for a room in a house for $1200 a month. We have a Detroit where if you stay and write you get a free house.
We have plenty of housing in the US, but not necessarily well lined up with what people want. For example not enough urban housing near Silicon Valley. For every San Francisco with 40 applicants for a room in a house for $1200 a month. We have a Detroit where if you stay and write you get a free house.
Or enough suburban housing near Silicon Valley.
Not much room to fit anymore suburban housing in Silicon Valley, however.
Not much room to fit anymore suburban housing in Silicon Valley, however.
There isn't enough housing at the right price, but I hear that 25-30% of Apple employees (and similar rates for Google and Facebook) live in SF because they want an vibrant urban neighborhood. Which doesn't exist within 40 miles of either office.
San Jose is trying though.
Suburban housing is pretty available. With Cupertino, Santa Clara, San Jose.... al of the neighboring places are suburban in nature.
It's actually 14% as of 2013, nearly twice that many live in San Jose. San Jose just never is going to be San Francisco, but yes it could and is becoming more urban and vibrant. That number comes from a report Apple released irg to its new HQ, can't find the report but there's a news articles about it.
Just because there's a lot of housing doesn't mean it's available. San Jose-Santa Clara has long had one of the lowest housing vacancy rates in the nation. In the 2009-11 community survey, San Jose-Santa Clara had the lowest rental vacancy and highest rents of any metro area. http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-07.pdf
Inventory for sale is similarly very, very low, part of what has driven prices so high.
We definitely don't have a housing shortage... we may just be now wading our way through the glut built up during the boom. But real estate is location dependent, just because there is a glut in housing overall doesn't tell you anything about a specific market. Oakland or San Francisco have shortages. Suburban silicon valley has shortages. Chicago you've got hundreds of houses in urban areas with easy access to transit that cost less than $100,000. That doesn't mean there is a glut of housing inside the Loop.
You can't draw the conclusions the article draws if you're intelligent and unbiased.
For example, they show a picture of a carefully manicured suburb and say "too much." No, that's not true.
And then the show a picture of an abandoned urban area and say "this is technically urban but doesn't count."
Very clearly there's too much urban (or too much of the wrong kind) or that block wouldn't be abandoned. Also it's pretty clear there isn't too much suburban where that particular picture was taken, or at least not very much too much.
Moreover, overall doesn't help at all. Even if there is no urban housing shortage for the nation as a whole, what does that have to do with anything? Should we not build more urban housing in areas where there clearly is a shortage (Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, NYC areas) because there isn't in Detroit? That's just dumb. San Francisco's solution (clear lack of housing) is different than Cleveland where there's other problems, built environment and otherwise.
In the case of Chicago, the housing wouldn't have to be as central as the loop to be expensive. The Northside is expensive of course, but even Northwest is not that cheap (I would say relatively reasonable, maybe about $200/sf). It seems like there is a lack of urban housing in areas that are relatively safe (and not decayed to the point of having overly reduced walkability) even in Chicago.
Considering it's seen as one of the worst neighbourhoods in Chicago, it makes you what kind of condition the under $100,000 stuff is (or if this seller is just crazy).
I think most metro areas have lack of supply for urban housing that has certain attributes, namely relatively safe, decent transit and jobs nearby (not true of some midwestern cities), housing that isn't falling apart and not having gone downhill so much that all the half decent retail is gone. But urban housing not taking into account those attributes is not under supplied in some cities, so I guess in those cases (ex Chicago) it would be better to improve the West and South side neighbourhoods than building new housing in the North/Northwest (although that could be more difficult).
You can't draw the conclusions the article draws if you're intelligent and unbiased.
For example, they show a picture of a carefully manicured suburb and say "too much." No, that's not true.
And then the show a picture of an abandoned urban area and say "this is technically urban but doesn't count."
Very clearly there's too much urban (or too much of the wrong kind) or that block wouldn't be abandoned. Also it's pretty clear there isn't too much suburban where that particular picture was taken, or at least not very much too much.
Moreover, overall doesn't help at all. Even if there is no urban housing shortage for the nation as a whole, what does that have to do with anything? Should we not build more urban housing in areas where there clearly is a shortage (Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, NYC areas) because there isn't in Detroit? That's just dumb. San Francisco's solution (clear lack of housing) is different than Cleveland where there's other problems, built environment and otherwise.
The article talks about a demand for "walkable urban" Ghetto areas like those bombed-out looking rowhouses don't fit the bill depending upon your definition of walkable. Certainly most bad neighborhoods have low walkscores, even if they have good walking infrastructure, because they often lack many businesses.
As far as I know, it's true in every single metro that if you look at only those areas where crime is low and schools are acceptable to parents, you'll find a significant price premium in the urban/walkable areas versus the suburban/unwalkable ones. Obviously many people (especially families) sacrifice the walkability first for obvious reasons. But just because they choose that option over ludicriously expensive neighorhoods or ghettos doesn't mean they'd make the same choice if there were enough "walkable urban" options that the price per square foot differential was nil.
In the case of Chicago, the housing wouldn't have to be as central as the loop to be expensive. The Northside is expensive of course, but even Northwest is not that cheap (I would say relatively reasonable, maybe about $200/sf). It seems like there is a lack of urban housing in areas that are relatively safe (and not decayed to the point of having overly reduced walkability) even in Chicago.
Considering it's seen as one of the worst neighbourhoods in Chicago, it makes you what kind of condition the under $100,000 stuff is (or if this seller is just crazy).
I think most metro areas have lack of supply for urban housing that has certain attributes, namely relatively safe, decent transit and jobs nearby (not true of some midwestern cities), housing that isn't falling apart and not having gone downhill so much that all the half decent retail is gone. But urban housing not taking into account those attributes is not under supplied in some cities, so I guess in those cases (ex Chicago) it would be better to improve the West and South side neighbourhoods than building new housing in the North/Northwest (although that could be more difficult).
$73 sq/ft, only 2bd (1200 square feet), $88k. It's not the lap of luxury, but it looks habitable. There's simply too many listings for it to be a seller is crazy. Most look at least habitable.
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.
