Affordable cities are the new sweet spots

[Larry King]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

on a bright note, from a development perspective, much of the housing is already in place. maybe it just needs updates or some general rehab but now it just needs people! i haven't done a craigslist comp. study recently, but its crazy what 200k will get you in places like cleveland and st. louis compared to big coastal cities. i think if you are past the going out and night life phase, then picking a city based on affordable real estate is a perfectly good reason to move. after awhile, i think people just stop caring about the latest club, or fitness craze and just want a comfy, nice place to hang out or someplace to raise the kiddos....

Though it isn't easy to make money in those towns.

[pdxtex]

hence, they just need the people. i myself moved from michigan too because the opportunities seemed dim at the time. maybe things are better now but im where i am so, im not moving....so perhaps the truly sweet spot cities are those within close proximity to more expensive markets, baltimore, philly and ones where winter is the price leverager, chicago, minneapolis....people like to argue weather isnt that important but id beg to differ. i dunno, i think its just a tougher job market all around the country.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

on a bright note, from a development perspective, much of the housing is already in place. maybe it just needs updates or some general rehab but now it just needs people! i haven't done a craigslist comp. study recently, but its crazy what 200k will get you in places like cleveland and st. louis compared to big coastal cities. i think if you are past the going out and night life phase, then picking a city based on affordable real estate is a perfectly good reason to move. after awhile, i think people just stop caring about the latest club, or fitness craze and just want a comfy, nice place to hang out or someplace to raise the kiddos....

This is an attractive idea. Not that I'd leave Seattle, but it's still worth someone considering, whether you're a renter or own and have equity to buy a place.

But it's less attractive the more I think about it.

If you're a 20-something renter paying 50% of your income for housing in Boston, maybe you can pay 25% of your income in Cincinatti. But if your income is 1/4 less, there's no gain. Maybe you can ditch the car because you can live closer-in, or maybe you decide to get a car because it's not Boston.

Or you're a mid-career person with home equity. Maybe cash that out and pay some or all of the cost of a new place. But mid-career can be a tough place to start a new life. It might mean moving down a rung at work unless it's a corporate relocation. You probably don't know many or any people. That goes triple if you have a family, though you're your own support group.

Retired with home equity to trade for a new place? Or retired on a small fixed income? Great financially, but you're leaving your friends and relatives. You might overcome this by traveling more.

Then there's that issue with the deteriorating housing stock. There's not much new housing in these cities (in relative terms) and excepting Chicago/Minneapolis/etc. what is new is generally limited quality because it needs to fit the cheap local rents. The older housing mostly needs renovations. Suddenly things get more expensive.

Now "move-backs" should be easier. They already know people, can handle snow, etc.

[pdxtex]

^^^right, obviously picking up and moving for cheap real estate A, probably isnt something young college grads are thinking of already and B, requires very special circumstances for it to work, socially and logistically. so yes, i dont midwest cities can rely on people packing up and moving to the midwest on purpose. as coastal markets get more expensive, people from the interior probably wont bother moving west or east, or south for that matter and will just stay in their home state. lets have this conversation in 5 or 10 years and then we'll see where we stand. really, can any midwest folks shed some light on what you city is doing to keep local millenials? those are the folks these cities need.

[MayDay]

This article isn't heavy on details but it's a decent overview from a Cleveland millennial:

http://www.freshwatercleveland.com/f...urn102814.aspx

As far as the weather goes - a vacation to a sunnier climate in the middle of January/February does wonders

[brickell]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

on a bright note, from a development perspective, much of the housing is already in place. maybe it just needs updates or some general rehab but now it just needs people! i haven't done a craigslist comp. study recently, but its crazy what 200k will get you in places like cleveland and st. louis compared to big coastal cities. i think if you are past the going out and night life phase, then picking a city based on affordable real estate is a perfectly good reason to move. after awhile, i think people just stop caring about the latest club, or fitness craze and just want a comfy, nice place to hang out or someplace to raise the kiddos....

I get the rust belt love around here, but the article sets up a false dichotomy. There's more to America than New York/SF and the rust belt.

Plenty of places that still offer relatively cheap living with the promise of jobs and growth. Texas seems to be the poster child of this recently.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by MayDay

As far as the weather goes - a vacation to a sunnier climate in the middle of January/February does wonders

They don't even have a single month with an average high below freezing. What sort of winter is that?

[Deepstar]

I understand where the article is coming from, and it does make sense to a certain degree, but jobs are still the driving force for city growth. It's always been that way and always will be that way. Those who move to a city just because it's a cool place, are a very small percentage, and I suspect the same thing might apply to people moving to a city just because it's cheap.

I grew up in Calgary and lived in Vancouver for a couple of years back in the 90's when Vancouver was way more expensive than Calgary. I moved back to Calgary because at the time my career opportunities were much better.
It was nice to move to a place with a lower cost of living, and if the decision came down to Calgary or another city of equal career opportunity, but was more expensive I would have chosen Calgary.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by brickell

I get the rust belt love around here, but the article sets up a false dichotomy. There's more to America than New York/SF and the rust belt.

Plenty of places that still offer relatively cheap living with the promise of jobs and growth. Texas seems to be the poster child of this recently.

which brings us to another point, this board is overwhelming pro brick! yeah, the conception that dense urban life can only exist in a sea of 4 story brick apartment buildings is definitely something im guilty of too. texas and the south have lots to offer also....

[brian_b]

Originally Posted by mhays

As others have pointed out, the expensive metros typically have cheap options. LA has Riverside. NYC has a lot of cheap parts of Jersey. Seattle has Tacoma, which has pluses but not many white collar jobs, and is probably 1/3 cheaper in housing costs.

When you consider the time and expense of commuting, these types of places aren't all that cheap, especially if quality of life is on your radar.

Those concerns also exist in rust belt cities that are repopulating. Jobs will follow, but will they be conveniently located?

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by brian_b

When you consider the time and expense of commuting, these types of places aren't all that cheap, especially if quality of life is on your radar.

Those concerns also exist in rust belt cities that are repopulating. Jobs will follow, but will they be conveniently located?

Another thing to consider in the cheap cities is whether or not people moving in will drive up the price for everyone else. I live in a city that is very cheap by coastal standards, and by big city standards... which is why people moving in from the coast or from big cities find it a steal. Unfortunately, a city where the average house costs $250k, but the average job pays $10/hour is not cheap for people trying to make a living in it. It's only cheap for people bringing in money from outside.

[Eightball]

Long format article (Washington Post) on this trend which is much better written, researched and interesting. Great read
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...251_story.html

[memph]

Originally Posted by Eightball

Long format article (Washington Post) on this trend which is much better written, researched and interesting. Great read
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...251_story.html

That seems to be more about secondary cities within large metropolitan areas though. There's a difference between Annapolis, Frederick and Alexandria and York, Cumberland and Charlottesville which are more properly beyond the economic sphere of influence of DC, Baltimore and Philadelphia.

[toddguy]

Although urban crime is dropping(mostly), what about that? Also, is every young couple moving into urban areas going to be childless? Funny about those pics of Cincy-not a child in sight. Is that young couple going to save enough to send any upcoming children to private schools?

What about schools? I hate to admit it, but I think most urban Ohio school districts are shit and need ALOT of work. I know that at least in Columbus, the best urban areas are within the Columbus City Schools boundary(with the exception of some inner suburbs with their own school districts). It would take a very involved parent(s) willing to spend a great deal of time to navigate the waters for their children to get a quality education there, IMHO.

It not just jobs that determine where people live-particularly regarding different areas within a metro area (as opposed to a relocation to an entirely different region).

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by mhays

This is an attractive idea. Not that I'd leave Seattle, but it's still worth someone considering, whether you're a renter or own and have equity to buy a place.

But it's less attractive the more I think about it.

If you're a 20-something renter paying 50% of your income for housing in Boston, maybe you can pay 25% of your income in Cincinatti. But if your income is 1/4 less, there's no gain. Maybe you can ditch the car because you can live closer-in, or maybe you decide to get a car because it's not Boston.

Or you're a mid-career person with home equity. Maybe cash that out and pay some or all of the cost of a new place. But mid-career can be a tough place to start a new life. It might mean moving down a rung at work unless it's a corporate relocation. You probably don't know many or any people. That goes triple if you have a family, though you're your own support group.

Retired with home equity to trade for a new place? Or retired on a small fixed income? Great financially, but you're leaving your friends and relatives. You might overcome this by traveling more.

Then there's that issue with the deteriorating housing stock. There's not much new housing in these cities (in relative terms) and excepting Chicago/Minneapolis/etc. what is new is generally limited quality because it needs to fit the cheap local rents. The older housing mostly needs renovations. Suddenly things get more expensive.

Now "move-backs" should be easier. They already know people, can handle snow, etc.

The latitude of Cincinnati doesn't even get that much snow. Theres years in St. Louis that I struggle to remember any snow sticking. the evergreen Southern Magnolia trees are common, although after last winter a lot were banged up.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

The latitude of Cincinnati doesn't even get that much snow. Theres years in St. Louis that I struggle to remember any snow sticking. the evergreen Southern Magnolia trees are common, although after last winter a lot were banged up.

St. Louis does snow consistently every year and its not uncommon to for St. Louis to get slammed. Of course we don't get slammed like the Great Lakes states, but anybody from the Gulf Coast states (Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama etc.) would think St. Louis was the arctic. I remember a couple years ago the first snow was on Thanksgiving and the last snow was on April's Fools, I wouldn't consider that mild weather at all. I'm also confused about your Southern Magnolia trees comment, evergreens are definitely common in this area of the country, but Southern Magnolias are definitely not common or native to St. Louis, that's definitely limited to the deep south. As somebody who spends a considerable amount of my time in Florida, I will also say that St. Louis is hardly a half back destination either for northern transplants. I think North Carolina, Virginia and Tennessee have that on lock.

[brian_b]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

on a bright note, from a development perspective, much of the housing is already in place. maybe it just needs updates or some general rehab but now it just needs people! i haven't done a craigslist comp. study recently, but its crazy what 200k will get you in places like cleveland and st. louis compared to big coastal cities. i think if you are past the going out and night life phase, then picking a city based on affordable real estate is a perfectly good reason to move. after awhile, i think people just stop caring about the latest club, or fitness craze and just want a comfy, nice place to hang out or someplace to raise the kiddos....

Just to use Cleveland as an example, since I know a bit about it, but pre-merger, Cleveland was a Continental Airlines hub and with the ease of connecting with the rest of the country there was an awful lot of $$$$$ consulting based there. And with the Cleveland Clinic and University Hospitals, there were also a lot of well-paid residents and young doctors running around. Far more people in their late-20s and early 30s making serious cash than you would expect. I knew a few and spent some weekends there. There were interesting places in Cleveland, mostly not downtown but in weird neighborhoods. Not in large quantities, but they existed. Places that would still be really interesting even if they were in NYC.

[MayDay]

"What about schools? I hate to admit it, but I think most urban Ohio school districts are shit and need ALOT of work. I know that at least in Columbus, the best urban areas are within the Columbus City Schools boundary(with the exception of some inner suburbs with their own school districts). It would take a very involved parent(s) willing to spend a great deal of time to navigate the waters for their children to get a quality education there, IMHO."

Much like the residential real estate, it's about options that didn't exist previously. I don't disagree about the traditional public schools but as you mentioned, even then there are the exceptions and the parents would need to navigate the system. Also, there's a growing number of urban-minded families who have partnered with either charter schools or churches - good examples in Cleveland would be Urban Community School and the Near West Intergenerational School. It's not enough to offset the dismal public schools but again - parents didn't have any choice until recently.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by goat314

St. Louis does snow consistently every year and its not uncommon to for St. Louis to get slammed. Of course we don't get slammed like the Great Lakes states, but anybody from the Gulf Coast states (Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama etc.) would think St. Louis was the arctic.

it's also important to remember that there is a GIANT variation in snowfall across the great lakes region depending on which side of a lake a given city is on. for instance, chicago is much closer in average annual snowfall to cities like cincinnati and indy, than it is to buffalo or grand rapids.



Average Annual Snowfall:

great lakes cities:

rochester: 99.5"
buffalo: 94.7"
montreal: 89.6"
duluth: 86.1"
grand rapids: 74.9"
cleveland 68.1"
minneapolis: 54.5" (for comparison, not great lakes)
green bay: 51.4"
toronto: 47.8"
milwaukee: 46.9"
hamilton: 46.5"
detroit: 42.5"
toledo: 37.6"
chicago: 36.3"


lower midwest cities:

columbus: 26.7"
indianpolis: 25.9"
cincinnati: 22.1"
kansas city: 18.8"
st. louis: 17.7"


northeast cities:

boston: 43.8"
pittsburgh: 41.4"
hartford: 40.5"
providence: 33.8"
new york city: 25.8"
philly: 22.4"
D.C.: 15.4"


source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

[mhays]

If 20" per year sounds like the frozen Arctic from my Pacific Northwest perspective, it must sound like hell to a sunbelter.