HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 2:17 PM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
my priority is EXACTLY the same as yours, we just have different opinions on what's best for our respective kids.
I mean, I spent a whole lot of time researching this before I became a parent, and there's basically no evidence to suggest that outcomes for middle-class white kid are different in any way whether they go to a racially diverse city school or a top-notch suburban school. Basically the entirety of educational performance can be chalked up to socio-economic status.

And indeed, our daughter - who goes to a majority-black school - has been doing great and is a straight-A student. I'm a little let down she wasn't quite smart enough to qualify for gifted (she tested at 119, which is under the threshold the district sets for white students) but that's probably more attributable to the typical reversion to the mean when you have children than anything.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 2:19 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 19,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
smallness is part of it, but COL is probably the bigger factor at play here. 3 of those 4 cities are EXTREMELY expensive from a COL standpoint, and miami ain't exactly a bargain city either.

in contrast, other cities with similar land sizes like baltimore, st. louis, pittsburgh, and buffalo don't show up on the "childless city" list because they are an order of magnitude more affordable than cities like SF or DC.
But the issues are related. Miami is expensive/high COL because it's geographically small. It primarily encompasses core neighborhoods, which are more expensive than typical South Florida family neighborhoods.

Baltimore and Buffalo aren't more affordable than DC or SF. They have a similar or higher share of income going to housing costs, because incomes are so low. I believe Flint, no one's idea of an expensive city, has the highest U.S. housing burden.

https://www.governing.com/gov-data/e...tal-costs.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 2:27 PM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,941
Weren't you already schooled on how housing burdens are a terrible affordability metric by Mhays? You keep regurgitating the same bullshit like a broken record.
__________________
Spawn of questionable parentage!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 2:38 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 21,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
But the issues are related.
that's true. if SF or DC were 300+ sq. miles, they would contain more areas of relative affordability, and would thus almost certainly have higher percentages of children.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Baltimore and Buffalo aren't more affordable than DC or SF.


left is right and up is down in crawfordland.

i love the fact that you actually believe your own nonsense.


median home values:

buffalo - $85,800
baltimore - $113,500

DC - $563,200
SF - $1,362,200

source: zillow


buffalo's median home value is a fucking rounding error in san francisco.
__________________
He has to go.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Jul 25, 2019 at 3:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 4:10 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 25,548
Read all of what Crawford wrote: Baltimore and Buffalo aren't more affordable than DC or SF. They have a similar or higher share of income going to housing costs, because incomes are so low.

If I am to interpret this correctly, relative to their respective populations, Buffalo really isn't that much of a bargain compared to SF because the higher percentage of people living well below the poverty line. Houses may in the millions in SF but wages are much higher. I am from Upstate NY and the poverty is pervasive and an $80k house we may think is affordable is waaay out of reach for many families in that area. Contrast to the west coast where $80k is about what people pay for a car.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 4:15 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 21,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post

If I am to interpret this correctly, relative to their respective populations, Buffalo really isn't that much of a bargain compared to SF because the higher percentage of people living well below the poverty line. Houses may in the millions in SF but wages are much higher. I am from Upstate NY and the poverty is pervasive and an $80k house we may think is affordable is waaay out of reach for many families in that area. Contrast to the west coast where $80k is about what people pay for a car.
i'm looking at this through the lens of middle class people (people like me).

let's say a plumber in buffalo makes $50,000/year. he's totally gonna be able to buy an $86,000 home for his family.

let's say a plumber in SF makes $130,000/year. he's nowhere remotely close to being able to buy a $1.3M dollar home for his family.
__________________
He has to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 4:17 PM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
Read all of what Crawford wrote: Baltimore and Buffalo aren't more affordable than DC or SF. They have a similar or higher share of income going to housing costs, because incomes are so low.

If I am to interpret this correctly, relative to their respective populations, Buffalo really isn't that much of a bargain compared to SF because the higher percentage of people living well below the poverty line. Houses may in the millions in SF but wages are much higher. I am from Upstate NY and the poverty is pervasive and an $80k house we may think is affordable is waaay out of reach for many families in that area. Contrast to the west coast where $80k is about what people pay for a car.
Incomes are not 16 times higher in San Francisco as Buffalo. Not even close.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 4:33 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 19,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
i love the fact that you actually believe your own nonsense.
Yes, I actually believe Census derived rent burden data.

Not sure why you posted median home values, which have zero relevance to relative rent burden.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 4:35 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 19,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
i'm looking at this through the lens of middle class people (people like me).

let's say a plumber in buffalo makes $50,000/year. he's totally gonna be able to buy an $86,000 home for his family.

let's say a plumber in SF makes $130,000/year. he's nowhere remotely close to being able to buy a $1.3M dollar home for his family.
This has zero to do with rent burden. You're saying that someone making 50k can more easily buy an 86k asset than someone making 130k buying a $1.3 million asset, which is obvious, and irrelevant.

SF has relatively low rent burden, because incomes are high, and there's a high percentage of non-market housing. Flint has relatively high rent burden because incomes are low and there's a low percentage of non-market housing. The typical SF household is less rent burdened than the typical Flint household.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 4:53 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 21,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
This has zero to do with rent burden.
to me, rent burden is really more of a measure of how many poor people live in a given place rather than a measure of affordability for middle class people.

if you're poor, and can luck your way into subsided housing in SF, it probably is better than being poor and subject to the vagaries of the free market in buffalo.

if you're a middle class average joe just trying to put a reasonably comfortable roof over your family's head, you can do that in buffalo. good luck with that in SF.

and the utterly absurd cost of market housing in SF is one of the main reasons why it has the lowest percentage of children in the nation.

small + expensive = fewer children




Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
You're saying that someone making 50k can more easily buy an 86k asset than someone making 130k buying a $1.3 million asset, which is obvious, and irrelevant.
how in the fuck is the ability of middle class people to purchase homes for their families irrelevant to a discussion about affordability?

oh wait, i forgot, we're in Crawfordland, up is down. nevermind.
__________________
He has to go.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Jul 25, 2019 at 7:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 5:06 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is offline
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 7,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHOFEAR View Post
After having so many acquaintances move out of downtown after having a kid, my wife I and really thought we could be one of the few who could raise a kid downtown (at least for a couple years and move when the second would be a toddler). We had a two bedroom 930ish sq feet condo and thought it would be big enough and the kids could share a room.

The second we got home from the hospital we realized we had made a terrible mistake.

The front hallway would be unpassable due to the stroller and car seat. It was impossible for my wife to haul groceries from the parkade...Our parents would normally need to pay for parking to come visit their grandchild. Complete disaster.

We moved into a house in a neighborhood from the late 1970's era...two story, huge pie lot, attached front garage. life is better. I just built a bed for my daughter from scratch on the driveway, and currently finishing up designs on a playhouse/swing set that I will start building this weekend. cant do that downtown.

Looking back on it now, it was incredibly selfish of us to think we could raise a kid downtown. The things that our daughter enjoys the most....we would have never of had room. Her inside playhouse, the inflatable pool in the backyard...etc. The house is big enough where if our daughters toys are spread out in the family room after we put her to sleep, my wife and I can go watch TV and unwind in the living room without being surrounded by a mess.

If kids are in your future.....do yourself a favor and get into a house with a backyard asap. Moving with a toddler/baby sucks....don't do what we did and think you can get by.

If you were raised in a suburb that might seem to be the natural order of things, yet millions more people around the world raise their kids in apartments just fine. It's hardly child abuse.

Keep in mind that your child's needs are going to change over time as well. A backyard might be nice when they're 5, but priorities change and access to amenities might matter more when they're 15. Having to act as one's teenager's personal chauffeur is never great for the parents either. At some point you just have to make a decision between which trade-offs are worse - unless you're either rich or like Steely and lucky enough to live in a city where traditional mid-density urban neighbourhoods are readily and affordably available.
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 5:11 PM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,896
In depressed Rust Belt towns, basically everyone who isn't destitute or living in an area for a short period of time (like a student) has the opportunity to buy a home somewhere. Hence you would expect that median renter income in those cities would be much lower than the total median income. In contrast, in an NYC or San Francisco, you wouldn't expect anywhere near as dramatic of a gap between median renter income and median household income.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 5:29 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 25,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
In depressed Rust Belt towns, basically everyone who isn't destitute or living in an area for a short period of time (like a student) has the opportunity to buy a home somewhere. Hence you would expect that median renter income in those cities would be much lower than the total median income. In contrast, in an NYC or San Francisco, you wouldn't expect anywhere near as dramatic of a gap between median renter income and median household income.
Sure, almost anyone can buy a home but the real challenge is where they have to factor property/ school taxes and then maintain that home. Which in NYS they are pretty damn high and I remember the heating bills in the winter.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 5:47 PM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
Sure, almost anyone can buy a home but the real challenge is where they have to factor property/ school taxes and then maintain that home. Which in NYS they are pretty damn high and I remember the heating bills in the winter.
In my first home in Pittsburgh, until gentrification resulted in the house being reassessed in 2011, I paid almost nothing in property taxes, because the value of the house was barely over the homestead exemption.

As for heating - I always paid for that as a renter anyway. Are utilities more typically included in Upstate NY or something?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 6:01 PM
Khantilever Khantilever is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
This has zero to do with rent burden. You're saying that someone making 50k can more easily buy an 86k asset than someone making 130k buying a $1.3 million asset, which is obvious, and irrelevant.

SF has relatively low rent burden, because incomes are high, and there's a high percentage of non-market housing. Flint has relatively high rent burden because incomes are low and there's a low percentage of non-market housing. The typical SF household is less rent burdened than the typical Flint household.
The problem with these "rent burden" calculations is that

1) Many households are dual-income. If you're the one single-income household in a neighborhood of DINKs, of course you're going to be in trouble. There's too much heterogeneity in households to make these "median measures" meaningful.

2) Amenities. What people are willing to pay for homes doesn't depend only on income. In major cities, you are also paying for public transportation when you buy a home (which offsets private transportation). If you live somewhere with great weather, beaches, mountains, etc., you'll pay for that. A lot of people will pay $5,000/year to get those amenities. They're consuming amenities paid for through house prices; I consume amenities in Chicago paid for with a credit card.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 6:22 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 25,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
In my first home in Pittsburgh, until gentrification resulted in the house being reassessed in 2011, I paid almost nothing in property taxes, because the value of the house was barely over the homestead exemption.

As for heating - I always paid for that as a renter anyway. Are utilities more typically included in Upstate NY or something?
Property/ village/ school taxes could run you 4-5k on a modest sub 100k home. That's pretty high and if you're on modest means as it is. I remember my gran freaking out every September and January when taxes were due.

Heating is typically only included if the utilities aren't separated; one family home broken out into two or three flats but still one furnace . Otherwise renter pays their own utilities. And oil is fairly common and $$$
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 6:42 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 21,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
And oil is fairly common
for real?

i thought heating oil had gone the way of the dodo, but maybe that's only in cities piped for gas?

when my parents bought the house i grew up in in 1975, it still had an oil furnace, but my dad switched us over to a gas furnace shortly thereafter.

i still remember the giant oil drums in the basement that he didn't get around to removing until i was older.




EDIT:

looking into, it looks like it's a regional thing particular to the northeast. the rest of the nation has very few homes still using heating oil.


source: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=3690
__________________
He has to go.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Jul 25, 2019 at 7:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 6:58 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 25,548
A lot of SFH homes converted away from oil but the north east is littered with converted Victorian era homes turned apartments and flats and many of those still use oil. Landlords just pass expenses onto tenants and not worth converting i guess.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 7:45 PM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,896
Heating oil sucks as a tenant if it's your responsibility to fill up the tank, because you can easily end up paying for a good deal of the oil for the next tenant coming into the building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 8:24 PM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Norfolk, Va
Posts: 2,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
i'm looking at this through the lens of middle class people (people like me).

let's say a plumber in buffalo makes $50,000/year. he's totally gonna be able to buy an $86,000 home for his family.

let's say a plumber in SF makes $130,000/year. he's nowhere remotely close to being able to buy a $1.3M dollar home for his family.
Exactly.

If I make 50k in Norfolk and move to SF and make 80k(a nice pay jump) this would mean I make 2,500 more a month before taxes. If the median rent here is like 1,000 for a two bedroom and its about 5,000 in SF, I am poorer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:25 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.