Affordable Housing Draws Middle Class to Inland Cities

[Crawford]

I will never understand just moving somewhere only because the cost of real estate is cheaper. Poiund-for-pound, is there a worse city in the U.S. for urbanites than Oklahoma City? And how about that weather, location, politics, and topography!

I would assume the people cited in the article don't really care about urban amenities, so, for them, Oklahoma City as as good as Paris, it's just the housing cost that matters.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I will never understand just moving somewhere only because the cost of real estate is cheaper.

I would assume the people cited in the article don't really care about urban amenities, so, for them, Oklahoma City as as good as Paris, it's just the housing cost that matters.

100% agreed

[Kenmore]

Originally Posted by 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.

ugh

[Reverberation]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I will never understand just moving somewhere only because the cost of real estate is cheaper. Poiund-for-pound, is there a worse city in the U.S. for urbanites than Oklahoma City? And how about that weather, location, politics, and topography!

I would assume the people cited in the article don't really care about urban amenities, so, for them, Oklahoma City as as good as Paris, it's just the housing cost that matters.

It depends on what you value the most. If everyone was into cheese tasting and "culture" then all cities and towns would offer the same things and coastal elitists would come up with different reasons to look down their noses at everyone and convince themselves how important they are. In fact they do. You can find theater, good food, and GOOD ENOUGH amenities in places like Greenville, SC or Oklahoma City. It's not the Met but most people go to New York, visit the museums, take about a week, then go home satisfied. They have lives and don't need it all the time.

Lots of people want to move to places where Real Estate is cheaper so they can BUY REAL ESTATE and build a residual income stream without signing away 30 years of their lives and becoming slaves to their bank. Maybe they have children and want to plant roots somewhere in which case renting well into their 40's and 50's is enough to cause them to part with their chic urbane aesthetic environment.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Reverberation

It depends on what you value the most. If everyone was into cheese tasting and "culture" then all cities and towns would offer the same things and coastal elitists would come up with different reasons to look down their noses at everyone and convince themselves how important they are.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with this. Functional urbanity is completely unrelated to cheese tasting or whatever stock cliche is ascribed to "coastal elitists".

[pdxtex]

if you were pining for suburban living and got priced out of suburban california or seattle, i can see how texas and the plains states might be alluring. but yeah, they folks who moved and bought some huge mcmansion probably were not bent on dense urban living. oklahoma city seems like its going through a boomtown phase so its urbanism is being built as we speak. thats kind of cool. if you really want to move to move someplace cheap and off the urban radar of most of americans, id go to cincinatti or cleveland, pittsburgh or saint louis. but the doors to the west are not closed yet. portland is still many economic boom cycles behind seattle, vancouver or california. its more like denver and minneapolis. if we were to take seattle, manhattan and california out of the picture, all these dire real estate articles probably wouldn't seem like a big deal. crap, just scouring craigslist, you can buy condos on staten island for 200k, within 5 miles of the capital of earth.....big deal....its just super rich central cities that get all the press. remove san fransisco, seattle, la, vancouver and manhattan, and for the rest of america, its business as usual.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Crawford

It has nothing whatsoever to do with this. Functional urbanity is completely unrelated to cheese tasting or whatever stock cliche is ascribed to "coastal elitists".

This is very true.

In every city, the market is either responding or trying to. Most of urban/suburban US either flat-out doesn't allow urban development or allows only watered-down versions. Other places are held back by poverty, deterioration, and fear. But where it works, people will pay very high rates to get it.

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by 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.

Fascinating. I was not aware that the "high dollars" were so self-sufficient.

Originally Posted by Crawford

I will never understand just moving somewhere only because the cost of real estate is cheaper. Poiund-for-pound, is there a worse city in the U.S. for urbanites than Oklahoma City? And how about that weather, location, politics, and topography!

I would assume the people cited in the article don't really care about urban amenities, so, for them, Oklahoma City as as good as Paris, it's just the housing cost that matters.

Then let me spell it out for you. If you live somewhere expensive and can't enjoy anything about it because you're working sixty hours a week to keep yourself in a hovel whose rent still keeps increasing by the year, then sooner or later you're going to want to live someplace where the pay is higher and the costs are lower. You might even get uppity and think about buying real estate in such a place.

That reason, and that reason alone, is why my small city isn't four times as large as it already is. If we retained every person who wanted to live here, but can't because they can't afford it, Charlotte, Raleigh, and other fast-growing New South cities would stay up late nights worrying about us.

[JoeMusashi]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I will never understand just moving somewhere only because the cost of real estate is cheaper. Poiund-for-pound, is there a worse city in the U.S. for urbanites than Oklahoma City? And how about that weather, location, politics, and topography!

I would assume the people cited in the article don't really care about urban amenities, so, for them, Oklahoma City as as good as Paris, it's just the housing cost that matters.

It is because you are, more than likely, a person of privilege. Not everyone wants or can afford to live in the types of communities you are promoting. I think the average American still wants a house in a safe neighborhood, with decent schools, nearby stores/services/restaurants, and good employment options. These are a premium in most major cities/urban suburbs. Therefore, the average American makes sacrifices. Affordable houses/jobs will always mean more than the cool urban amenities that usually don't mean sh-t after you have kids.

It's not like Oklahoma City has nothing to offer. It seems like a nice enough city that is desperately trying to improve itself. People need to stop with these digs and insults of smaller cities in this country. As someone who lives in a place (Milwaukee) that often gets crapped on in a similar fashion, I feel the pain of those who have their hometowns constantly put down.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by JoeMusashi

It's not like Oklahoma City has nothing to offer. It seems like a nice enough city that is desperately trying to improve itself. People need to stop with these digs and insults of smaller cities in this country. As someone who lives in a place (Milwaukee) that often gets crapped on in a similar fashion, I feel the pain of those who have their hometowns constantly put down.

Who craps on Milwaukee? It's a fantastic city and gets almost all good press.

[Evergrey]

Oklahoma City doesn't have cheese tastings?

[llamaorama]

Poiund-for-pound, is there a worse city in the U.S. for urbanites than Oklahoma City? And how about that weather, location, politics, and topography!

OKC has good things going for it.


My response is either Fayetteville/Bentonville metro(500k people) or Killeen/Fort Hood, TX(425k people).

Absolutely zero urban characteristics whatsoever despite being the same league as second/third tier rust belt or new england towns that have old school centers and urban housing stock.

Who craps on Milwaukee? It's a fantastic city and gets almost all good press.

All the press from Milwaukee has been "the city is broke". I want to like Milwaukee, I do.

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.

Sarcasm?

[M II A II R II K]

Speaking of OKC, I remember this promo from last year.


• Video Link

[mhays]

A lot of people with kids value short commutes, being able to walk to restaurants (including some kid-friendly ones), being able to walk to school, etc. Even going to the park a couple blocks away vs. only yards.

That's why the average in-town bungalow can often go for more than the average suburban house twice as large. To say nothing of the $/sf of the average two-bedroom condo.

[JoeMusashi]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

Who craps on Milwaukee? It's a fantastic city and gets almost all good press.

Well-informed people, such as those who post on this site, do give Milwaukee (and our Midwest/Rust Belt brethren) love. But the common man? Yikes. Some of the comments I have read about Milwaukee, particularly on sports websites, are laughably ridiculous. Like Escape From New York, with more fat people, more alcoholics, Siberian temperatures 365 days a year, and nothing to do beside watching 70's sitcoms. Then again, these people are idiots that still think great cities are determined by skylines (regardless if they are surrounded by parking lots), Hard Rock cafes, strip clubs, and rap music. Same idiots that think Minneapolis is also a frozen hellhole, for some bizarre reason.

Sadly, these idiots have some power in the media. A month ago, these ESPN jackanapes were giggling to each other about Jabari Parker wanting to play in Milwaukee. Asking him questions as if he just got drafted to fight in the Vietnam War, not make millions of dollars in a smaller city.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by 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

Tulsa is missing from this map. How does Tulsa compare to OKC? I always think of them as twins.

[JoeMusashi]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

All the press from Milwaukee has been "city broke". Milwaukee was the motivation for that terrible post I made that pissed everyone off in the other thread.

I want to like Milwaukee, my grandmother grew up there, and I have family across the area, my friend is from the area, etc, but it just seems so sad. Madison, on the other hand, is freaking awesome and wish I could move there.

Madison is certainly a cool city but I would get burned out there rather quickly. Too many partying college kids, too many government types, too many yuppies, and too many political crackpots. High quality of life but I don't think it's for everyone. It is booming with urban development and is vibrant---so I can understand where you are coming from.

Milwaukee isn't really that bad. As a matter of fact, I don't think it has been better for decades. Lots going on here in terms of improvements, new developments, and positivity. I reckon it's turnaround is more along the lines of Pittsburgh, which flies under the radar. Milwaukeeans are somewhat self-loathing and stubborn, so I'm guessing your family is telling you that the crime is at Rio de Janeiro levels. And that the city was better in back in the day with its legit racism, declining industry, historic structures being torn down, and turn into a s--thole like most American cities at the time. People are nostalgic like that here.

[SD_Phil]

I was shocked by how much I like Milwaukee. I've spent probably a couple of months there in the last two years (near UWM) and found it to be a lively place with great bars and a surprisingly good foodie scene.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by Reverberation

It depends on what you value the most. If everyone was into cheese tasting and "culture" then all cities and towns would offer the same things and coastal elitists would come up with different reasons to look down their noses at everyone and convince themselves how important they are. In fact they do. You can find theater, good food, and GOOD ENOUGH amenities in places like Greenville, SC or Oklahoma City. It's not the Met but most people go to New York, visit the museums, take about a week, then go home satisfied. They have lives and don't need it all the time.

Lots of people want to move to places where Real Estate is cheaper so they can BUY REAL ESTATE and build a residual income stream without signing away 30 years of their lives and becoming slaves to their bank. Maybe they have children and want to plant roots somewhere in which case renting well into their 40's and 50's is enough to cause them to part with their chic urbane aesthetic environment.

No one could say it better than you have. Thanks.

[AviationGuy]

Always amazing to see posts in these kinds of threads from members who have obviously not been to certain cities or states in years, and rely on outdated information or stereotypes. As for Urban Politician's "lower means" post...that's one for the SSP records (to be quoted a decade from now).