Sunbelt battle for #2?

[bigstick]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Here's a map of the Sunbelt, so hopefully that settles things.

Not really,,,all of NC, TN, AR, and OK are sunbelt...PERIOD...

[dktshb]

Certainly Denver and Salt Lake City are not Sun Belt cities as others have mentioned here.

Los Angeles probably was the first "Sun Belt" city when it experienced tremendous growth around the middle of the 20th Century, but it already was a city of 1.5 million people before WW2 even began let alone post war, and therefore looks and feels different from the Sun Belt cities of today. Sure anybody can point out similarities between any 2 cities in North America regardless of what artificial region they are placed.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by liat91

California stopped being Sunbelt in 2010.

This is ridiculous. Why not just say instead that some areas of the Sunbelt have now become pricy and urban to the point that instead of being a magnet, they now have negative net domestic migration numbers...?

The Sunbelt is the Sunbelt and will remain it regardless of what happens (short of maybe an ice age or nuclear winter). The defining characteristics are "no winters, and palm trees".

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Shawn

My wife grew up in Sunnyvale in the 90s. By 93 Sunnyvale was already approaching unaffordable for most. Last time we visited South Bay in 2016, we drove by her old house and Zillowed it for fun; the 4 bedroom 2.5 bath late 70s split level had been sold that year for $3.3 million.

4 bedroom 2.5 bathrooms is a pretty big house though. If well located, it's not that unreasonable. It's a super high wage area... Much more justifiable than seeing cookie cutter bungalows in Vancouver selling for that much.

[lio45]

I wonder how much this would sell for... it was boarded up at the time of the last Street View a few months ago:

(wonder if it comes with the mid-1980s Toyota in the driveway)

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3883...7i16384!8i8192

[Crawford]

Ugh. The housing stock in Silicon Valley, generally speaking, sucks.

It's one thing to pay millions for a special property, but crap like that should be demolished (and yeah, I get that no one is actually paying for the structure; only the land matters).

[Dariusb]

Overall which is Honolulu more expensive than the Bay Area or the other way around?

[llamaorama]

Originally Posted by SFTransplant

I never thought of "sunbelt" as a specific geographic region but rather a cluster of cities that shared common characteristics such as rather sunny and warm weather, explosive post-war growth, and a destination for retirees. As others have pointed out, they're lots of cities in the sunbelt "region" such as Jackson, MS or Montgomery no one would consider sun belt so I'm not sure arguing over geographic characteristics makes sense. And if we were, than we'd definitely want to include places like St. George, Denver, Yuma- i.e., the sunniest places in the US.

Agreed

To me the sunbelt is:

Phoenix
Orange County
San Diego
Tucson
Vegas
St George
Prescott
Palm Springs
Lake Havasu
Tampa Bay down to Naples
Miami
Orlando
Daytona and Cocoa Beach
Santa Fe
Key West

Maybe:

Hawaii
Albuquerque
Texas Hill Country
Rio Grande Valley
Pensacola
Savannah to Hilton Head
Charleston
LA in terms of the core city.

The following are NOT the sunbelt in my opinion:

El Paso
Jacksonville
Houston
Dallas
Mobile
New Orleans
Bay Area
CA Central Valley

[JManc]

Houston/ Dallas not sunbelt?

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by JManc

Houston/ Dallas not sunbelt?

My thoughts exactly.

Houston and Dallas - NOT sunbelt, but L.A. (core city) - maybe Sunbelt.

Sure thing.

[llamaorama]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

My thoughts exactly.

Houston and Dallas - NOT sunbelt, but L.A. (core city) - maybe Sunbelt.

Sure thing.

LA grew rapidly in the 20s and 30s as a kind of prototype of what was to follow after WW2. Hollywood is very sunbelt in its origins. People moved to California to chase dreams. It lured folks from the Atlantic seaboard. I say it’s only mildly sunbelt because by the 80s it was facing troubled times and modern reborn LA isn’t sunbelty either.

Houston is a blue collar southern port city which became the undisputed global center of its chief industry, oil and chemicals. Dallas was an old school plains/middle America banking and commercial center not unlike Kansas City that became a corporate heavyweight.

Nothing about either was ever sunbelt, ever. Houston is way too working class and Dallas is too business focused, and the latter has somewhat cool winters.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by lio45

4 bedroom 2.5 bathrooms is a pretty big house though. If well located, it's not that unreasonable. It's a super high wage area... Much more justifiable than seeing cookie cutter bungalows in Vancouver selling for that much.

4 bed 2.5 bath in the form of a late 70s split level isn’t that big. About 2200 sq feet. And it’s not a nice 2200 sq feet either, because half of it is half underground. Split levels suck. The property is about 1/8th an acre too.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

LA grew rapidly in the 20s and 30s as a kind of prototype of what was to follow after WW2. Hollywood is very sunbelt in its origins. People moved to California to chase dreams. It lured folks from the Atlantic seaboard. I say it’s only mildly sunbelt because by the 80s it was facing troubled times and modern reborn LA isn’t sunbelty either.

Houston is a blue collar southern port city which became the undisputed global center of its chief industry, oil and chemicals. Dallas was an old school plains/middle America banking and commercial center not unlike Kansas City that became a corporate heavyweight.

Nothing about either was ever sunbelt, ever. Houston is way too working class and Dallas is too business focused, and the latter has somewhat cool winters.

Those are old stereotypes that no longer apply to either city and haven't done in my lifetime. People have been moving to all Texas's major metros for similar reasons they did LA decades earlier.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Ugh. The housing stock in Silicon Valley, generally speaking, sucks.

It's one thing to pay millions for a special property, but crap like that should be demolished (and yeah, I get that no one is actually paying for the structure; only the land matters).

Actually, people seem to keep those super-plain mid-1950s houses and update them. There's lots of examples like this:

https://www.redfin.com/CA/Sunnyvale/...5/home/1092636

I guess construction costs in Silicon Valley are so high that you may as well just keep the modest cookie-cutter design and make it nicer... otherwise just buy something bigger that already exists.

[lio45]

And I'm in a position to answer my own earlier question now - that piece of crap house, in a condition where it needs a total rehab, would sell for $800k-$900k at the very least.

[jd3189]

Again, you guys are making this Sunbelt definition thing so anally specific as if the term can only include fast growing locales in the South. If you want to do that, fine, but you’re still be anally specific.


The Sunbelt is essentially the Southern half of the lower 48. That map from Wikipedia is more or less what it is and all the cities that are Sunbelt are in it as well. It has rich expensive cities as well as poor cheap ones and everything in between. It can include working class towns as well as party tourist cities. Not sure why it should have a more exact definition.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Agreed


El Paso
Jacksonville
Houston
Dallas
Mobile
New Orleans
Bay Area
CA Central Valley

I would say those are all sunbelt probably.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

My thoughts exactly.

Houston and Dallas - NOT sunbelt, but L.A. (core city) - maybe Sunbelt.

Sure thing.

Not to mention Dallas and Houston are cheaper than Arizona so If the Criteria of cheap housing is still defining sunbelt that doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by lio45

Actually, people seem to keep those super-plain mid-1950s houses and update them. There's lots of examples like this:

https://www.redfin.com/CA/Sunnyvale/...5/home/1092636

I guess construction costs in Silicon Valley are so high that you may as well just keep the modest cookie-cutter design and make it nicer... otherwise just buy something bigger that already exists.

A lot of the old 1950s ranches have new editions built in the back of the house, or the old carport converted into additional space.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

A lot of the old 1950s ranches have new editions built in the back of the house, or the old carport converted into additional space.

Agreed most of the nicer mid-century homes in Phoenix are getting remolded and selling for double the price of newer suburban homes. People love the mid century look but it actually goes well in our environment and climate so I totally get why.

hell I live in a 1965 updated mid century building