Affordable Housing Draws Middle Class to Inland Cities

[M II A II R II K]

Affordable Housing Draws Middle Class to Inland Cities


AUG. 3, 2014

By SHAILA DEWAN

Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/04/bu...land.html?_r=0

.....

The country’s fastest-growing cities are now those where housing is more affordable than average, a decisive reversal from the early years of the millennium, when easy credit allowed cities to grow without regard to housing cost and when the fastest-growing cities had housing that was less affordable than the national average.

- Rising rents and the difficulty of securing a mortgage on the coasts have proved a boon to inland cities that offer the middle class a firmer footing and an easier life. In the eternal competition among urban centers, the shift has produced some new winners.

- Oklahoma City, for example, has outpaced most other cities in growth since 2011, becoming the 12th-fastest-growing city last year. It has also won over a coveted demographic, young adults age 25 to 34, going from a net loss of millennials to a net gain. --- Other affordable cities that have jumped in the growth rankings include several in Texas, including El Paso and San Antonio, as well as Columbus, Ohio, and Little Rock, Ark.

- Before the real estate market crashed, housing in four of the five fastest-growing metropolitan areas, including Cape Coral, Fla., and Riverside, Calif., was less affordable than in the average American city, judging by the relationship between the median home price and income for each metropolitan area. But from 2008 to 2012, all five of the cities with the most growth were more affordable than average, including Raleigh-Durham, N.C., and the cities of El Paso, San Antonio, Austin and McAllen in Texas.

- Of course, some of the fastest-growing cities, like Austin, may become victims of their own success as new people crowd in. Bill Curtis, an affluent petroleum geologist, has lived there since 1976, when it was known for little more than legislative wheeling and dealing and college football. On a recent day, he was unhappily contemplating traffic from his high-rise apartment. “They’ve screwed this town up so royally, it’s unbelievable,” he said. But Mr. Curtis has a solution. He’s moving to Oklahoma City.

.....

[llamaorama]

They’ve screwed this town up so royally, it’s unbelievable,” he said. But Mr. Curtis has a solution. He’s moving to Oklahoma City.

What's stopping this dude from moving to Kyle or Elgin?

Austin might get expensive but it has few limits on growth. And if Austin can cease to be attractive to this individual a booming OKC will have the same fate right ?

[mhays]

If "room to grow" means wider highways and more sprawl....good riddance to those who insist on such things.

I do acknowledge that urban cores tend to be getting better across the country too. But a lot of the growth is sprawl.

[strongbad635]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

What's stopping this dude from moving to Kyle or Elgin?

Austin might get expensive but it has few limits on growth. And if Austin can cease to be attractive to this individual a booming OKC will have the same fate right ?

Probably a worse fate as Oklahoma City has (predictably) pursued a Houston-style suburban development pattern that, as it continues to roll over former farmland, will require more and more highway infrastructure to support the lack of transportation choices available in the area. If OK City continues to grow, it will eventually reach "The Houston Problem" where density and transportation choice become valued assets only out of frustration at a completely failing highway system choked by massive gridlock and smog.

[Double L]

Originally Posted by strongbad635

Probably a worse fate as Oklahoma City has (predictably) pursued a Houston-style suburban development pattern that, as it continues to roll over former farmland, will require more and more highway infrastructure to support the lack of transportation choices available in the area. If OK City continues to grow, it will eventually reach "The Houston Problem" where density and transportation choice become valued assets only out of frustration at a completely failing highway system choked by massive gridlock and smog.

Uh...that's not true. Houston has a massive highway system, it has no geographic impediments, so it is filled with ten lane highways and multiple loop highways. I live in north Houston and could easily get around my part of Houston during rush hour without many problems. The bad areas are the northwest (highway expansions under construction there) and the west segment of Loop 610 (one of the worst bottlenecks in the country). Looks like you were staring at the Rita evacuation videos for too long.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Double L

Uh...that's not true. Houston has a massive highway system, it has no geographic impediments, so it is filled with ten lane highways and multiple loop highways. I live in north Houston and could easily get around my part of Houston during rush hour without many problems. The bad areas are the northwest (highway expansions under construction there) and the west segment of Loop 610 (one of the worst bottlenecks in the country). Looks like you were staring at the Rita evacuation videos for too long.

Any solution to this? Obviously it's not politically feasible to rip out highway lanes. I'd guess that the masses aren't clamoring for growth control either.

[BG918]

Why are Omaha and Des Moines absent from the map? They have both seen healthy growth and are inland cities with strong economies. I don't see Louisville, Cincinnati or Tulsa either.

[pdxtex]

does portland get the reputation for being an expensive city? the inner neighborhoods are pretty expensive but you can still find lots of housing for 200k all over the place. its not going to be that ultimate finished craftsman or bungalo but it will be a fine townhouse or 50's ranch near transit. seattle and its buddies are the expensive cities. were a long way off from being a top tier real estate market region wide. good news for the midwest though. im glad its doing better.

[Reverberation]

Originally Posted by Double L

Uh...that's not true. Houston has a massive highway system, it has no geographic impediments, so it is filled with ten lane highways and multiple loop highways. I live in north Houston and could easily get around my part of Houston during rush hour without many problems. The bad areas are the northwest (highway expansions under construction there) and the west segment of Loop 610 (one of the worst bottlenecks in the country). Looks like you were staring at the Rita evacuation videos for too long.

It's true. I live and work in the Greenway area and can not easily get anywhere during the hours of 4-7pm (or 12-6pm on Friday). If I don't want to spend 30 minutes traveling 2 miles my choices are to 1) stay at the office or 2) cocktails. I have (in the course of me career so far) had the opportunity to meet some of the local governing officials and do my best to politely point out how they are f**king the city, its employers, and its citizens over by not investing in REAL transit. They always seem to get indignant and point out the bus. The bus doesn't count. The bus is in the lane next to me creeping along at 5mph in the same traffic jam as everyone else. They have no ideas and no appetite for raising local tax money to pay for it.

The problem seems to be that many of the people who are and would be in charge of this have been in their jobs for a while now and seem to be under the impression that it's still 1999 and Houston still has about 4,000,000 people. They plan solutions for 10 years ahead that take 7 years to build and are almost immediately out of date when growth outpaces projections.

[Reverberation]

Originally Posted by mhays

Any solution to this? Obviously it's not politically feasible to rip out highway lanes. I'd guess that the masses aren't clamoring for growth control either.

The people don't like growth control in the form that you see in places like San Francisco or Portland. The key is to attract development to where it has the best access to regional employment centers as opposed to "controlling" where it can and can't go.

[Double L]

Originally Posted by Reverberation

It's true. I live and work in the Greenway area and can not easily get anywhere during the hours of 4-7pm (or 12-6pm on Friday). If I don't want to spend 30 minutes traveling 2 miles my choices are to 1) stay at the office or 2) cocktails. I have (in the course of me career so far) had the opportunity to meet some of the local governing officials and do my best to politely point out how they are f**king the city, its employers, and its citizens over by not investing in REAL transit. They always seem to get indignant and point out the bus. The bus doesn't count. The bus is in the lane next to me creeping along at 5mph in the same traffic jam as everyone else. They have no ideas and no appetite for raising local tax money to pay for it.

The problem seems to be that many of the people who are and would be in charge of this have been in their jobs for a while now and seem to be under the impression that it's still 1999 and Houston still has about 4,000,000 people. They plan solutions for 10 years ahead that take 7 years to build and are almost immediately out of date when growth outpaces projections.

I named a few places that are bad but to say that it was a completely failing highway system choked by massive gridlock is inaccurate. Even you have to admit that the majority of the city isn't as bad as that.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by Double L

Uh...that's not true. Houston has a massive highway system, it has no geographic impediments, so it is filled with ten lane highways and multiple loop highways. I live in north Houston and could easily get around my part of Houston during rush hour without many problems. The bad areas are the northwest (highway expansions under construction there) and the west segment of Loop 610 (one of the worst bottlenecks in the country). Looks like you were staring at the Rita evacuation videos for too long.

I probably agree with you. I see Houston's infrastructure as quite good for the sprawl style city. Outside of the core rush hours, it's pretty easy to get around except where there's construction. Austin is the same style city, but the infrastructure is horrendous, and it's difficult to find a time when getting from point A to point B is easy. I know plenty of people who are looking to escape Austin when they practically can, just like the guy in the article (not that there's not a lot to still like about the city). I mentioned here once before that my associate from Minneapolis stated that he'd never been anywhere in the country where there was such gridlock as in Austin.

OKC is in its infancy, so to speak, yet already has a pretty good infrastructure. If you can get past the tornado risk, it's a relaxed, pleasant city with great neighborhoods and nice people (at least for now). I'd consider moving there except for the storms and cold winters.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by Reverberation

It's true. I live and work in the Greenway area and can not easily get anywhere during the hours of 4-7pm (or 12-6pm on Friday). If I don't want to spend 30 minutes traveling 2 miles my choices are to 1) stay at the office or 2) cocktails. I have (in the course of me career so far) had the opportunity to meet some of the local governing officials and do my best to politely point out how they are f**king the city, its employers, and its citizens over by not investing in REAL transit. They always seem to get indignant and point out the bus. The bus doesn't count. The bus is in the lane next to me creeping along at 5mph in the same traffic jam as everyone else. They have no ideas and no appetite for raising local tax money to pay for it.

The problem seems to be that many of the people who are and would be in charge of this have been in their jobs for a while now and seem to be under the impression that it's still 1999 and Houston still has about 4,000,000 people. They plan solutions for 10 years ahead that take 7 years to build and are almost immediately out of date when growth outpaces projections.

What about the new light rail lines that are about to open, in addition to those that are already open? I know it's nowhere near enough, but at least it should be acknowledged. I agree with you about buses.

[599GTO]

Not particularly interesting. High dollars that choose to live/work in a town matter far more than no. of poors who may live/migrate/work wherever.

Real question is where are >$1MM/yr jobs and where are they growing.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

What's stopping this dude from moving to Kyle or Elgin?

Austin might get expensive but it has few limits on growth. And if Austin can cease to be attractive to this individual a booming OKC will have the same fate right ?

A bullet to head would be more attractive than moving to Kyle. I-35 through Kyle is a nightmare. Most of the town's development centers around and relies on I-35. Kyle is well on its way to becoming the next Round Rock of Central Texas. Elgin is ok I guess, but it'll still mean probably 2 hours of driving every day since there are few jobs in Elgin other than service industry jobs.

Besides, most of the "Austin traffic" - the worst of it anyway, is I-35, and most of that traffic isn't even Austin traffic. It's traffic from South Texas heading to North Texas and vice versa. The suburbs make it worse, too, since residents of the suburbs still have to commute into Austin for their jobs. So really moving to suburbs is like shooting yourself in the head or the foot.

My sister and her husband moved to Del Valle, and they of course still have to drive into Austin for work and everything else. Their nearest grocery store is 20 minutes away (one way). That's absolutely ridiculous considering I can I ride my bicycle to mine in less than 10 minutes.

The only thing that is going to make the Texas suburbs attractive and practical is to have regional rail.

[llamaorama]

I think Kyle has some features of an actual town at least. It's all gross sprawl, sure.

Shame the Austin-San Antonio regional rail thing seems to have hit the skids. If that were to happen and acted a catalyst for TOD in all of those towns, it would be impressive. If it worked for the Wasatch Front, it would have worked in Central Texas.

[BevoLJ]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Austin might get expensive but it has few limits on growth.

Not sure I'd agree with that. West Austin is Hill Country and East Austin is agriculture. Neither of which are conductive to growth. The only real places where houses can be plopped down near Austin hasn't changed in forever, along I-35 to the north and south of Austin.

The issue there is that, while yes there is lot of room to put down homes on I-35, I-35 literally can't grow. I-35 will never be any bigger of a highway than it has always been due to the fact its footprint can't grow. So it will never be one of those massive highways you see in other cities. That is the limiting factor for the parts of Austin that could handle more housing.

So other than inside of Austin I don't see where there is much more room for growth and because of that it has become crazy expensive inside of Austin.

Edit: Although if like you said in the last post, if that rail could be built, that would change everything IMO.

[KevinFromTexas]

It has to be explored. I read somewhere that Buda is supposed to have 80,000 people by 2040 I believe. That's a ways off, yes, but it's still going to be sizeable with a lot of traffic issues between its size now and that 80,000 mark. Something has to be done. Austin is going to be choked to death by its suburbs otherwise.

I see some parallels to Austin's development and the linear behavior of it to California where you have a lot of development squeezed into a relatively narrow corridor with little development on either side of it because of geography and agricultural issues, and the transportation infrastructure within that corridor is also squeezed for space and nearly at capacity.

[M II A II R II K]

Which doesn't bode well for affordability.

[the urban politician]

I don't want to live someplace affordable.

I want to live someplace that has fine things, is expensive, and has a certain "bottleneck" effect that prevents people of lower means from living there. That's partly why I live where I do: property taxes are so high in my town and my particular school district that it essentially turns our public schools into quasi-private schools. We have fine restaurants, nice parks, etc. Whenever we want to go slumming we'll head over to Mundelein, Waukegan, etc to do that "authentic ethnic cuisine" or Walmart thing (Walmart in Waukegan, IL by the way is like a visit to Queens--perhaps the most diverse place I've seen in a long time!).

Chicago's burbs are so cleverly designed to juxtapose rich, middle class, and poor while still sequestering them. All you do is you change the property taxes around, and everything falls in place. They've got this perfected to a T.