The housing crisis thread

[iheartthed]

I agree that there is upward pressure on prices in Detroit (city and metro), but it is still a far cry from being a housing crisis. But part of the story on why there is upward pressure on prices is the fact that they demolished so much housing over the past 10 - 15 years. You can still buy solid, livable houses in Detroit for less than $100k.

According to Zillow, this house sold for $75,600 yesterday: https://maps.app.goo.gl/bKCmZyn1ETppnnMs5

That's not an area with a lot of amenities or good public schools, but that house looks pretty solid. If that house were in NYC or the Bay Area it would easily go for 10 times that amount in a similarly "undesirable" neighborhood.

This house sold for $60k last week: https://maps.app.goo.gl/oXqAxkzDFGMVaWbW9

Again, not an affluent area but the house is solid. It would easily go for 10x that amount in cities with true housing shortages.

[subterranean]

For starters, those are livable houses capable of being financed by average people with regular mortgages. And drawing correlations between the housing markets in the Bay Area & NYC and Detroit is beyond a stretch, for numerous reasons, not least of which is median income in those regions, their lack of widespread decay and abandonment of single family housing stock, and their global investments in housing. If there was not demand not being met in Detroit, it would be in a situation like Austin and Florida right now, which are seeing price declines (because they've over built), which is not happening in Michigan and Metro Detroit.

According to Redfin (March 2025):

Milwaukee’s median sale price jumped 20% year over year in February—a bigger increase than any other major metro. Detroit also saw a double-digit gain. A housing shortage is prompting buyers to bid up prices.

In Milwaukee, the median home sale price rose a record 20% year over year in February to $330,000—the biggest jump among the 50 most populous metros. Next came Detroit (12.5%), Nassau County, NY (11.7%), San Jose, CA (11.1%) and Cleveland (10%).

In Detroit, active listings dropped 6.7% year over year in February—the largest decline among the top 50 metros. Next came Newark, NJ (-6.4%), Milwaukee (-3.7%), Cleveland (-3.6%) and Portland, OR (-3.1%).

But hey, what's facts got to do with anything these days, anyway?

[iheartthed]

Markets are dynamic. Cherry-picking short term trends does not make a crisis.

[Crawford]

Metro Detroit does not have low median incomes, or home prices. There's plenty of money, and demand.

But the areas that are being abandoned have incredibly low prices and demand, hence the point. Something is wrong when home prices in provincial cities in the third world are higher than a few miles from the downtown of a major U.S. metro.

Granted, it's much less of an issue than 10 years ago, when prices were really approaching 0, but it's still there. Even 100k SFH is crazytown for a metro area with a bigger economy than Frankfurt, Madrid and Montreal. These same homes are $1 million+ in Frankfurt, and apples-apples incomes are lower there.

[subterranean]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Markets are dynamic. Cherry-picking short term trends does not make a crisis.

I didn't cherry pick anything. I previously referenced the statewide housing needs assessment and several other recent studies. But I guess I should just disregard those in favor of a couple of randos on the internet who can't read or provide alternative information proving it wrong. Yeah, I think I'll disregard the State's chief market analyst and University of Michigan because of your gut feeling

[edale]

If Detroit has a 'housing crisis', then that term is officially useless. San Francisco, where you literally cannot find housing that non high-income earners can afford in the entire city, has a housing crisis. Detroit has some of the cheapest real estate of any major metro in the country. People might not be able to find cheap housing in premier neighborhoods, but you're not looking at a situation in Detroit where teachers have to drive 1.5 hours into the city because they can't afford to live there.

There is a huge amount of open, buildable space left in Detroit. If there was such a housing shortage, and such huge demand to live in the city, why are we not seeing widescale redevelopment of these areas? The reality is, there are a few successful, desirable neighborhoods in the city where people have access to urban amenities. These areas are getting expensive, but the rest of the city remains cheap. This is not a city or metro-wide housing crisis. Again, in San Francisco and LA, even the rough, undesirable neighborhoods are prohibitively expensive for most people. Inner suburbs are also prohibitively expensive. So the middle class and lower middle class people end up living in far flung exurban locations, often in undesirable locations like the Central Valley for the Bay or the high desert for LA, and deal with super commutes.

When everything gets labeled as a 'crisis' it really dilutes the potency of that word.

[mhays]

"Prices have been going up" and "we're in a crisis" are vastly different concepts.

Further, even good data from a trusted source can be used to make the wrong argument.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Metro Detroit does not have low median incomes, or home prices. There's plenty of money, and demand.

But the areas that are being abandoned have incredibly low prices and demand, hence the point. Something is wrong when home prices in provincial cities in the third world are higher than a few miles from the downtown of a major U.S. metro.

Granted, it's much less of an issue than 10 years ago, when prices were really approaching 0, but it's still there. Even 100k SFH is crazytown for a metro area with a bigger economy than Frankfurt, Madrid and Montreal. These same homes are $1 million+ in Frankfurt, and apples-apples incomes are lower there.

Frankfurt, Madrid, and Montreal have more efficient development patterns. Huge swaths of Detroit's core are abandoned. The urban area is overbuilt (national problem). Infill at scale requires significant population growth or the existing population shifting inward, which creates the same issue, but along the fringe rather than in the core.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I agree that there is upward pressure on prices in Detroit (city and metro), but it is still a far cry from being a housing crisis. But part of the story on why there is upward pressure on prices is the fact that they demolished so much housing over the past 10 - 15 years. You can still buy solid, livable houses in Detroit for less than $100k.

According to Zillow, this house sold for $75,600 yesterday: https://maps.app.goo.gl/bKCmZyn1ETppnnMs5

That's not an area with a lot of amenities or good public schools, but that house looks pretty solid. If that house were in NYC or the Bay Area it would easily go for 10 times that amount in a similarly "undesirable" neighborhood.

This house sold for $60k last week: https://maps.app.goo.gl/oXqAxkzDFGMVaWbW9

Again, not an affluent area but the house is solid. It would easily go for 10x that amount in cities with true housing shortages.

I like how you accuse him of cherry picking, then before that literally cherry pick random houses in Detroit.

Assuming the condition of these homes from the outside alone is pretty bold. You have no idea what the situation is inside or what's missing or needs replacing. Also the second home doesn't even look in good condition from the exterior.

[Steely Dan]

"we're a family of 4 and make the median household income of our metro area and cannot purchase a family-size home anywhere here unless we hit the Powerball."

Now that's a housing crisis.



"we're a family of 4 and make the median household income of our metro area and cannot purchase a family-size home here in an area we like."

That's something else.



The major rustbelt metros have plenty of very affordable housing for the middle class, it's just generally located in socially dysfunctional no-go zones that are avoided like the plague by everyone who isn't dirt poor. These types of places have largely been eliminated from the coastal big boys because of their very real housing crisis.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

"we're a family of 4 and make the median household income of our metro area and cannot purchase a family-size home anywhere here unless we hit the Powerball."

Now that's a housing crisis.



"we're a family of 4 and make the median household income of our metro area and cannot purchase a family-size home in an area we like."

That's something else.



The major rustbelt metros have plenty of very affordable housing for the middle class, it's just generally located in socially dysfunctional no-go zones that are avoided like the plague by everyone who isn't dirt poor. These types of places have largely been eliminated from the coastal big boys because of their very real housing crisis.

Generally true. A friend from NYC told me that the South Bronx is now being called "SoBro" and has lots of new apartments renting for at least $2K or $3K a month. If you are old enough, you may recall Ronald Reagan visited the south Bronx in 1980, the photos looked like a war zone.

[Crawford]

I don't think you're getting much for 2k in a newer South Bronx building. Looks like the Studios start closer to 3k, and the 1 Beds well above that.

[iheartthed]

The fact that we're even debating this is proof Detroit doesn't have a "housing crisis" or an affordability crisis. If Detroit had a housing crisis it would have things like rent control, housing lotteries, etc. You would see large numbers of poorer people being pushed out of their homes, and priced out of their neighborhoods, in favor of newer higher income residents. Detroit has little to nothing in the way of these types of policies or issues. Detroit's problems are literally the opposite, where the city and region are literally begging people to move there.

[mhays]

Yeah, if Detroit has a "housing crisis" the term has no meaning.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't think you're getting much for 2k in a newer South Bronx building. Looks like the Studios start closer to 3k, and the 1 Beds well above that.

A friend of mine looked at apartments in those new South Bronx towers. The prices for 1 bedrooms were starting at $4k/month and that was at least two years ago. She's a Bronx native but had been living in Manhattan for years. After the pandemic she was mostly working from home so she considered moving back to the Bronx but ended up going to Westchester because of how expensive the Bronx had gotten.

[Six Corners]

I feel like at any given moment we are battling roughly 17,000 media driven 'crises.' (How do any of us even get out of bed in the morning?!) Many of them are valid somewhere but too often they are thought to exist on even levels throughout the nation. I've been told my neighborhood is a food desert by some clickbait-y studies, which, when digging into the metrics, really means I don't live within walking distance of a full-service, brand name grocery store. The smaller markets and produce shops didn't count apparently, even though they sell a variety of quality, healthy food products at affordable, even subsidized prices.

To hear some of the actual crises various cities are facing tossed around by misguided people who believe such crises are copy-paste issues in all cities sometimes feels the same as if I were to go and complain that I cannot afford a 2025 BMW M5 with the Competition Sport package because of an "affordability crisis" on high-end, luxury sports sedans. It reminds me of when a few articles came out a few years ago professing that Beverly Hills is facing a gentrification crisis. Sure, rent control had been rolled back, but I would argue that Beverly Hills' bigger issue is a lack of multimodal transportation connectivity. (Not to comment on any grander affordability issues in the greater LA area). Too often we are fed a crisis and its tricky solution by those who may not fully understand the nuances or context of what they are talking about.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Six Corners

It reminds me of when a few articles came out a few years ago professing that Beverly Hills is facing a gentrification crisis. Sure, rent control had been rolled back, but I would argue that Beverly Hills' bigger issue is a lack of multimodal transportation connectivity.

What do you mean by a lack of "multimodal transportation connectivity?"

[Six Corners]

Originally Posted by craigs

What do you mean by a lack of "multimodal transportation connectivity?"

That it and its workers could stand to benefit from more safe and desirable ways to get there. I mean it’s not bad,, there are several bus lines to Beverly Hills, a few off-street and on street bike facilities, and sidewalks. But as an employment center, it will be easier on commuters once the Metro D line makes it out there and it could benefit from more safe bike infrastructure, and perhaps more bus service with some level of signal priority or BRT elements or something that allows it to get through traffic better during peak periods. And that these things interconnect to mitigate first mile/last mile issues.

My main point though is that not everyone who works in Beverly Hills needs to live there, just be able to get to it easily and safely.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Generally true. A friend from NYC told me that the South Bronx is now being called "SoBro" and has lots of new apartments renting for at least $2K or $3K a month.

This is funny because about 25 years ago, real estate people coined a "SoBro" in Nashville (South of Broadway), imitating the NYC thing that started with Soho, Tribecca, etc. SoBro (the Nashville one) has since been further subdivided with the invention of "Pietown".
https://www.reddit.com/r/nashville/c...rhood_and_why/

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Six Corners

I
To hear some of the actual crises various cities are facing tossed around by misguided people who believe such crises are copy-paste issues in all cities

Unfortunately the actual elected officials in some of these not-applicable cities can't lay off Twitter have adopted these rash-like ideas.

The worst example is the current half-weasel half-dork mayor of Cincinnati, Aftab Pureval, who achieved internet infamy when his bizarre taunt of the Kansas City Chiefs backfired a few days before the January, 2023 AFC title game.

Mr. Pureval declares that Cincinnati has a "missing middle", despite something approaching 50% of the city's housing being multifamily, much of it 2-4 family buildings.

Mr. Pureval declares a "housing crisis" despite the city having basements and attics in pretty much every single structure, meaning that there is plenty of space in most buildings for additional bedrooms.

Mr. Pureval is allergic to the west side and denies the existence of its thousands of vacant lots where new homes could be built to replace those torn down over the past 50 years.

Mr. Pureval rides the rent stats reported by the big boys and ignores that the city's armada of small multifamilies is overwhelmingly owned by mom-and-pops who overwhelmingly charge well-below the rents reported by professionally managed properties.