The sudden death of the American condo - Page 3

mhays · #41 Posted **Apr 15, 2024, 7:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Wouldn't that drive down average household size, rather than prop it up?

Oops, I was thinking backwards!

I only allow myself one 20-oz chai latte with extra pumps and no water every SECOND day, and and yesterday was the day, so I'm probably not thinking clearly.

SIGSEGV · #42 Posted **Apr 15, 2024, 7:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays

Oops, I was thinking backwards!

I only allow myself one 20-oz chai latte with extra pumps and no water even SECOND day, and and yesterday was the day, so I'm probably not thinking clearly.

are you even from Seattle?

mhays · #43 Posted **Apr 15, 2024, 8:09 PM**

Well I'm saving about $120/mo by only doing half...and my condo dues have gone up about that much in the last five years.

Re the $1,000 dues comment...mine are still well under that. A big chunk is staff, which results in basically zero risk of package theft, break-ins, etc. Another chunk is stuff I'd otherwise pay for separately like building insurance, water/sewer/trash, maintenance, repair, gym... It's worth it.

Condo values have definitely not grown much. Two drivers were Chinese money (related to capital policies and connectivity) and proximity to work. Both have diminished quite a bit, though at least the China flights have started to trickle back.

iheartthed · #44 Posted **Apr 16, 2024, 3:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't think this is likely. Chicago is extremely pro-development relative to other major U.S. cities.

Is it? The data doesn't suggest that at all. NYC has lapped Chicago in creation of new housing units since 1950 even though Chicagoland grew by a larger percentage than NY metro obetween 1950 and 2020 (51% vs 75%).

Steely Dan · #45 Posted **Apr 16, 2024, 3:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Is it? The data doesn't suggest that at all. NYC has lapped Chicago in creation of new housing units since 1950 even though Chicagoland grew by a larger percentage than NY metro obetween 1950 and 2020 (51% vs 75%).

Chicago is able to build enough to meet demand because there's little demand.

NYC could probably never build enough to truly meet demand.

Crawford · #46 Posted **Apr 16, 2024, 3:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Is it? The data doesn't suggest that at all. NYC has lapped Chicago in creation of new housing units since 1950 even though Chicagoland grew by a larger percentage than NY metro obetween 1950 and 2020 (51% vs 75%).

You can have more housing production and be more NIMBY, obviously. SF builds a lot more than Cleveland. SF is also a lot more NIMBY than Cleveland.

And I'm not sure of the relevance of 1950 housing production. I'm talking modern times. Not even sure the premise is true, or if MSA-level housing production data data from 1950 exists.

IrishIllini · #47 Posted **Apr 16, 2024, 3:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Chicago is able to build enough to meet demand because there's little demand.

NYC could probably never build enough to truly meet demand.

Probably more complicated and nuanced than this, but it has been easier to build out in Chicagoland and it's only somewhat recently that commute times really started to compound if you were living along the fringe and commuting into the urban area.

SIGSEGV · #48 Posted **Apr 16, 2024, 3:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Is it? The data doesn't suggest that at all. NYC has lapped Chicago in creation of new housing units since 1950 even though Chicagoland grew by a larger percentage than NY metro obetween 1950 and 2020 (51% vs 75%).

you can't compare absolute numbers vs. percentages though. NYC obviously starting from a bigger base.

iheartthed · #49 Posted **Apr 16, 2024, 3:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Chicago is able to build enough to meet demand because there's little demand.

NYC could probably never build enough to truly meet demand.

I'm not convinced that New York had more "demand" than Chicago. From a metro perspective, Chicago grew by a larger percentage than NY, and even in raw numbers Chicago's growth was in the same league (4.1M vs 6.8M). The city of Chicago also has/had way more room to add housing than NYC, but NYC ran circles around Chicago city in housing development.

iheartthed · #50 Posted **Apr 16, 2024, 3:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

you can't compare absolute numbers vs. percentages though. NYC obviously starting from a bigger base.

Percentage-wise, NYC has lapped Chicago in housing unit construction since 1950:

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It's also possible that Chicago's population has declined because it isn't building enough housing. NYC's count of housing units has increased by almost 40% since 1950, which has translated into a roughly 12% population increase over the same period of time. Chicago's housing units has only increased by about 12%, which has probably not been enough to sustain the population.

Steely Dan · #51 Posted **Apr 16, 2024, 3:27 PM**

^ I thought we were talking about housing unit development/population growth in city propers.

Not sprawl garbage.

Over the past 3 decades or so, NYC proper has had way more demand for new housing than Chicago city proper has had, and thus has had a much greater need to build more housing.

That said, Chicago city proper is still a fairly easy place to build relative to peers, but we're still in the throes of rustbelt-itis out here, with large chunks of the city still experiencing virtually no market demand for new housing, as the population decline/disinvestment downward spiral keeps spinning.

badrunner · #52 Posted **Apr 16, 2024, 3:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays

Well I'm saving about $120/mo by only doing half...and my condo dues have gone up about that much in the last five years.

Re the $1,000 dues comment...mine are still well under that. A big chunk is staff, which results in basically zero risk of package theft, break-ins, etc. Another chunk is stuff I'd otherwise pay for separately like building insurance, water/sewer/trash, maintenance, repair, gym... It's worth it.

Condo values have definitely not grown much. Two drivers were Chinese money (related to capital policies and connectivity) and proximity to work. Both have diminished quite a bit, though at least the China flights have started to trickle back.

Those ridiculous HOA fees make condos a depreciating asset, especially in markets like Florida, where you may also get hit with a one-time special assessment for maintenance in older buildings. Buyer beware.

iheartthed · #53 Posted **Apr 16, 2024, 3:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ I thought we were talking about housing unit development/population growth in city propers.

Not sprawl garbage.

I was just establishing that the reason for Chicago city not growing (compared to NYC) isn't due to a sluggish regional growth. The regional population growth has been there to continue growing the city of Chicago's population.

SIGSEGV · #54 Posted **Apr 16, 2024, 3:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by badrunner

Those ridiculous HOA fees make condos a depreciating asset, especially in markets like Florida, where you may also get hit with a one-time special assessment for maintenance in older buildings. Buyer beware.

In theory, higher HOA should lead to smaller chance of special assessment, if the board is doing things correctly.

HOA's have been increasing a lot in the last few years because suddenly contractors/materials had gotten a lot more expensive. At least that's my read of my condo building's budget (which has increased HOAs in anticipation of future elevator work...)

Crawford · #55 Posted **Apr 16, 2024, 3:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Percentage-wise, NYC has lapped Chicago in housing unit construction since 1950:

Where are you getting these data? I don't see older MSA-level housing production numbers on Census.

I do see average housing age, and it's a lot older in the NY area, suggesting less modern-day production.

It also doesn't make much sense. The NY area doesn't really have a lot of fringe sprawl from recent decades. And a lot of the fringe counties have smaller populations than in past decades.

In contrast, Chicagoland tends to have a lot of the McMansion on former cornfield-type stuff, and a lot of the fringe counties had massive growth.

Steely Dan · #56 Posted **Apr 16, 2024, 3:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I was just establishing that the reason for Chicago city not growing (compared to NYC) isn't due to a sluggish regional growth. The regional population growth has been there to continue growing the city of Chicago's population.

If Chicago city proper wasn't building enough new housing to meet demand relative to NYC proper, why is real estate so much cheaper here?

iheartthed · #57 Posted **Apr 16, 2024, 4:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

If Chicago city proper wasn't building enough new housing to meet demand relative to NYC proper, why is real estate so much cheaper here?

Real estate in Chicago is cheaper because of how the region responded to population growth pressure: growing the developed footprint of the region. New York chose to freeze the developed area and focus new housing on infill, which would obviously create land scarcity and drive up land values.

But consider this hypothetical: what if there were 3x the number of housing units built in the city of Chicago between 1950 and 2020 than had been built, which would have roughly matched NYC's proportion of new housing units created over the time period. Would Chicago's population likely be larger, smaller, or the same as it is today? I think we would both agree that it is least likely that Chicago's population would be even smaller, right? The most likely scenario is that Chicago's population would be the same as it is today or larger than it is today.

Steely Dan · #58 Posted **Apr 16, 2024, 4:11 PM**

^ but housing units aren't built in a vacuum, you need actual human households that want to occupy them, or they stop getting built.

If Chicago proper wasn't building enough housing to meet demand relative to NYC proper, the PSF cost of residential real estate in Chicago wouldn't be a mere fraction of NYC's (but it it is).

iheartthed · #59 Posted **Apr 16, 2024, 4:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ but housing units aren't built in a vacuum, you need actual human households that want to occupy them, or they stop getting built.

Chicago didn't stop building units because people stopped wanting them. Chicago stopped building because it ran out of room.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

If Chicago proper wasn't building enough housing to meet demand relative to NYC proper, the PSF cost of residential real estate in Chicago wouldn't be a mere fraction of NYC's (but it it is).

Property values in NYC are affected by more than just "demand", though. The area I live in was rezoned for taller residential buildings which caused property values to explode in a short amount of time. The increase in land value was sparked by the rezoning.

Steely Dan · #60 Posted **Apr 16, 2024, 4:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Chicago didn't stop building units because people stopped wanting them. Chicago stopped building because it ran out of room.

Huh?

There is PLENTY of room to build in Chicago.

The last estimate I read was 30,000 vacant lots in the city.

Chicago is still a rustbelt city in a way that NYC just fundamentally isn't anymore. It may not be quite as rusty as Detroit or Cleveland, but it's still a far cry from NYC.

And Chicago never stopped building new housing, it has just built far less than New York because there is less demand for it here.