| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/23 |
| 2008/1/4-8 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:48883 Activity:very high |
1/3 Why are home prices steady in the cities and collapsing
in the suburbs?
link:preview.tinyurl.com/2nj3gu (Twin http://Cities.com)
\_ This article really only sort of answers that question. A better
question is, why did the home prices in the suburbs get so out of
whack in the first plae?
whack in the first place?
\_ They weren't out of whack. This should all be obvious. There
are more jobs in the city so price/sqft in the city is higher.
Not everyone can afford that or wants to live in a city so
suburbs spring up around them and more around those in rings.
As prices decline, they first decline further from job hubs and
work their way back in. If things continue city prices (which
IMO are just as out of whack) will also fall.
\_ Hmm... you're not the swami...
\_ There are a lot of theories about this, but you should
know that in many large cities the prices are less than
in the affluent suburbs. Whether the market thinks the
cities or the suburbs are more desirable changed over time
from suburbs to cities to suburbs. Now the pendulum is
swinging back to cities again. However, there are still
many cities in this country in which living in the heart
of the city is not exactly desirable as compared to the
suburbs. Imagine, say, Detroit for example. It's not
really about 'job hubs' or 'shopping' or 'transportation'
or 'land' or 'schools' or 'crime'. It's about all of the
above plus the perceptions of the market at a given time.
\_ Heh, while reading your reply I was going to say 'Detroit'
as an example where what I said isn't true. But, yes, I
agree with your expanded version of what I said. All those
things are closely linked.
\_ In most cities worldwide, housing in the city costs more
per square foot than in the suburbs. This is even true
in most large American cities, which were designed for
easy automobile access. There are exceptions of course,
but even in Detroit there are some very nice neighborhoods,
like Palmer Woods. I don't think that "the suburbs" was
ever considered more desirable than the city center in
Paris, London, Tokyo or Cairo.
\_ Really? Where did the royal family of France live?
Every city might have some affluent areas, but in
more than you might think the suburbs are
considered more desirable. It's only recently that
people have moved back to downtowns after years and
years of flight to the suburbs. "Price per square
foot" isn't a good metric to consider to evaluate
desirability even though it might seem so on the
surface. I think overall price needs to be considered.
What fraction of people with $20M to spend on a place
choose to buy in Manhattan versus The Hamptons, for
instance. The suburbs of many cities are quite affluent,
reaching or exceeding the prices for the best real
estate in the city. Consider San Diego. Downtown San
Diego does have a lot of expensive real estate, but the
most desirable properties are in La Jolla, Rancho
Santa Fe, and other suburbs. This is echoed more
often than not across the nation from Miami to even
SF, where the truly rich often opt to live in places
like Atherton and Ross instead of the city proper
(Pacific Heights notwithstanding).
\_ Short answer: I'd bet that anyone with a
business/job in NYC and $20M has a place there and
likely also a place in the Hamptons or some other
distant non-business location. Cities and suburbs
both have good and bad areas. In a city, there is
simply physically less space available so all prices
are likely to be higher than in the suburbs, all
else being equal. I'm quite happily living in my
very suburban town in part because I know there is
no way I could buy a similar place in SF or anywhere
else closer to work for anything close to what I
paid for my house. $/sqft counts.
\_ $/sqft is not enough information on its own.
People don't usually buy or rent residential
property on $/sqft terms, although for
commercial real estate it is common. Imagine
if it wasn't a case where you "couldn't
afford a similar place" but rather "a similar
place doesn't exist". You need to account for
variables other than cost and square footage.
\_ A similar place to my suburban home does not
exist in SF in that sense, true. But to get
the same size yard, two car garage, space on
all sides of the structure, etc, would cost me
$1.5m to $2m or so when I last checked a few
years ago. If I had that much money for
housing I'd leave the state. And yes it
pretty much comes down to $/sqft. That is the
easiest way to measure the price of a home
compared to other homes. That is *the* major
factor for comping a house in an area. You
don't comp against a different sized home.
\_ Your last sentence is exactly why
$/sqft doesn't matter so much. You
don't comp against a different sized
home. Within a class of housing it
makes sense to compare in $/sqft, but
not otherwise. I would argue that you
cannot comp a house in SF to one in
Mill Valley based on $/sqft.
\_ Why do you claim that? Do you really
think there are no houses the same
size as the houses in Mill Valley?
If you really believe that, you don't
really know much about the SF
really know anything about the SF
housing stock. Comp Forest Hill or
St. Francis Wood vs. Mill Valley.
\_ No, it's because other factors
come into play. No appraiser
would choose SF houses as comps
for Mill Valley houses even if
they were the same size.
they were the same size. In fact,
he might not compare two houses
in Mill Valley by size alone. My
appraisal teacher gave an example
of a 6,000 sqft. house built by a
retired couple that only had two
bathrooms: a massive master bath
and a powder room downstairs. The
house appraised at much less per
sqft. than most other houses the
same size. This is an example why
pricing per sqft. does not make
sense for residential real
estate. For warehouse space, say,
it makes perfect sense.
\_ So warehouse space is worth the
same in Oakland as in Marin?
same in Oakland as in Marin, per
square foot?
\_ I'm sure it's fairly close,
except Oakland might cost
more if it's associated
with shipping but then
that's a feature.
\_ I would be astonished if that
were the case, since the land
is worth so much more in
Marin and rents are so much
higher there:
http://www.csua.org/u/kf7
Oakland data from NAI:
http://www.csua.org/u/kf8
Bulk warehouse rent - $5/sq ft
Industrial land price is
$300-750 k/acre
http://www.csua.org/u/kf9
SF data from NAI:
Bulk warehouse rent - $9/sq ft
Land price - $1.6-6M/acre
Marin data from NAI:
http://www.csua.org/u/kfa
Warehouse rent - $14/sq ft
Land - 800k-$1.3M
\_ What is there about your suburban home
that makes it so unique that there are
no homes in SF similar? I bet that you
are wrong. There are plenty of neighborhoods
with big yards, quiet streets, clean, lots
of parking, etc.
are wrong. There are plenty of homes with
big yards, quiet streets, lots of parking
etc.
\_ Not at any price I would pay and the
schools still suck and crime in the
city is still higher, etc. With enough
money I can get almost anything, but
why would I want to spend that much
money to get something that is actively
worse in important ways?
\_ Maybe I need RV or boat parking,
equestrian trails, or who knows
what I find value in. Maybe being
around smelly hippies all the time
annoys me or I just don't like fog.
\_ You can't pick and choose specific wealthy suburban
enclaves and compare them to the neighboring city.
If you want to compare suburban San Diego to
San Diego proper, include National City and
Spring Valley in your calcualtions. San Diego
Spring Valley in your calculations. San Diego
is kind of a tough one anyway, since La Jolla
and Rancho Santa Fe are part of the city proper.
There are always going to be some wealthier and
some poorer areas in both cities and suburbs, but
overall the cities are going to tend to be
more desireable and therefore more expensive.
more desirable and therefore more expensive.
Didn't we already have the billionaire discussion
a few months back? Far more billionaires call
San Francisco home than the outlying suburbs, though
Atherton wins on a per capita basis. Consider that
there are 5X as many people living in the SF suburbs
than in SF proper though and you can see where
people with unlimited resources tend to congregate.
The per capita concentration in the Bay Area is
much higher in The City than in the suburbs overall,
though there are some very prestigious suburbs
that appeal to a minority of wealthy people.
There was no such thing as a "flight to the
suburbs" in most of the world. Do you really
think that Parisian suburbs were ever more
desireable than the city center? Tokyo? London?
desirable than the city center? Tokyo? London?
\_ To the royal family the Parisian suburbs were
more desirable, and they could live anywhere
they wanted. The Japanese royal family didn't
live in Tokyo either. You are correct about
London. You don't need to include National
City or Spring Valley. You just need to look
at the top end, because those are the people
with choices. Of course poorer people are
going to be in Riverside versus Los Angeles.
In that sense, proximity to a city does
influence value. However, my point is that in
most US cities it does get more and more
expensive, on average, as one gets closer to
the city but only to a point. Malibu is not
closer to the urban center than Hollywood.
Atherton is not closer to the urban center
than the Sunset District. You cannot just
assume that the main factor here is proximity
to an urban center. It's just *ONE* factor.
BTW, Rancho Santa Fe is not part of San Diego
proper. La Jolla is, but it's very clearly on
the outskirts of town. I would argue that the
most desirable property is that which is
convenient to a major urban center without
actually being in it, although this is
changing as more people are moving back to
the cities recently. I think with
telecommuting becoming more common the trend
will again reverse and people will leave the
city centers.
\_ Well, fundamentally, suburbs are boring.
They have had an image as either
a good place for raising a family, or perhaps
for people who want a quiet life, or want to
live closer to nature. Royalty and other famous
people or the ultra rich may have different
concerns.
I've known a lot of people in the south bay
area who commute here from SF. Which is crazy.
But they do because it's a city they like to
live in. There are a lot more things to do
and people around. I think this is the
historical normal thing.
Bad city management policies are probably to
blame for the reverse situation. e.g. crime,
cleanliness, pollution, transit options and
usability, parks that aren't full of
hoodlums/homeless, housing programs that
backfire, etc.
\_ There's a reason so many people who get
married and have kids move to the suburbs.
Quieter, safer, cleaner, better schools,
etc. If you're at that stage of life you're
not looking to party all weekend or come
back at 3am from a night of clubbing with
someone you didn't know an hour earlier.
\_ There are plenty of SF neighborhoods
that are clean, quiet, safe, have good
schools, etc. Just none that are in the
price range of your typical suburban
commuter.
commuter. And they are mostly full of
middle aged executives with children.
Maybe you would call them "suburbs
within a city" but they really aren't.
\_ Good schools? So SF has ended their
mandatory lottery system for schools
and my kids would go to the nearest
school like any real city? And what
would it cost me to send my kids across
town for a randomly chosen school?
\_ You can always send your kid to
private school, if you can afford it.
\_ We don't really have any fundamental
disagreement, though I think your
characterization of The Versailles as part of
the Paris suburbs circa 1700 is off the mark.
It was more like a rural village before the
King showed up. If you don't think proximity
to jobs is the primary determinant to land
(and therefore home) value, what do you think
*is* the main factor? -PP
\_ What you are missing is that both the
suburbs and city center are proximate
enough that other variables begin to
matter more. We aren't talking about LA
versus Banning for the most part. We are
talking about SF versus Lafayette, both
of which are proximate enough that the
proximity to jobs is not the prime factor
and instead "quality of life" issues
dominate. People in Marin, East Bay,
Palo Alto, Los Gatos, and so on are close
enough to high-paying jobs without having to
live in the city proper. In fact, many
of those jobs aren't even in the city proper.
I would argue that most people who choose to
live in SF do so because of lifestyle
concerns and not proximity to jobs. In
some ways SF is an affluent suburb of
Silicon Valley.
\_ As someone commuting from the suburbs to
the Valley, no, they're not that
proximate. I chose to have a nicer home
in exchange for 2 hours of driving every
day. It is not a trivial commute. If
pricing/quality/size was similar to where
I am I wouldn't be where I am, I'd be 5
minutes walk from work.
\_ Palo Alto and Los Gatos are probably as
close (in commute time) to as many high
paying jobs as most of The City, but I
don't think that is true for most of
East Bay or Marin. Your last sentence
is not true. Most SF residents work in
The City. Do you have any evidence that
more people commute from SF->SV than
visa versa? Traffic on the 101 would
indicate otherwise.
\_ I bet a lot of people who live in
Palo Alto work within a radius as
large as SF, too. So what? In
terms of population centers, SF is
really more of a suburb than a
real city.
\_ A suburb to what city? Now you
are just babbling. You might
be able to make the claim that
it is a small city or something
but to claim that it is a suburb
is just bizarre.
\_ San Jose
\_ I haven't been part of this
discussion, but anyone that
would assert that SF is a
suburb of San Jose is an
idiot. Ditto for someone who
would assert that the French
court located in Versaille
because they preferred to
live in a suburb of Paris.
Conceptually, suburbs didn't
exist until the automobile
was invented. -dans
\_ Why did they live in
Versailles instead of
in the city then if
not because they
preferred it? I also
do not think San Jose
was a suburb of SF
historically, but the
way the two cities are
trending SJ will eventually
dwarf SF. It's already
true that the SJ suburbs
have almost grown all
the way to SF and not
vice-versa (SF suburbs
growing to SJ). SF is
a small city and will
eventually be Long
Beach to SJ's LA.
\_ My point was that
Versaille is not a
suburb of Paris. As to
why the court set up
shop in Versaille, I'm
not really up on my
French history so I
can't say, and my hunch
is neither are you.
And, of course San Jose
will dwarf SF. San
Jose has room to
expand, and San
Francisco is
constrained to a
peninsula. Manhattan
is the wealthiest
burrough of New York
per capita (and
possibly overall), but
it's not going to grow
because it's an island.
I don't see Brooklyn or
Queens surpassing
Manhattan as the
cultural or monetary
epicenter of New York
city... ever. You're
going to have a hard
time making the
argument that San
Jose's urban sprawl is
somehow going to
elevate it to the
importance of LA. -dans
\_ When I realized I was
arguing with an idiot,
I stopped. I though of
the obvious example
of Brooklyn, but why
waste my time? -PP
\_ Not only is
Brooklyn part of
NYC proper, but
it's clearly adjoined
to Manhattan. You
should have used New
Jersey as an example.
However, San Jose is
not in a similar
situation. It and
its suburbs are
cities in their own
right. In many ways
the South Bay is more
relevant than SF
is and if that trend
continues SF will be
a wealthy enclave.
It is important to
note that the growth
in the Bay Area is
not radiating away
from SF. Instead, the
growth is radiating
from SJ. You might
have a point about
the limited land area
if areas close to SF,
but not in SF, were
growing. However,
that's not really the
case. Many of the
communities adjacent
to SF are not seeing
dense growth as a
result of proximity
to SF. In fact, the
population of SF is
fairly stagnant.
Fairly recently it
was actually
declining. SF
has enough land
to be twice its
population easily,
but it is fading
into irrelevancy.
I grant you that
it is far from
there yet, but
that is the trend.
BTW, Versailles
is 10.6 miles
from the center
of Paris. It's
clearly a suburb.
In fact, Wikipedia
says "Versailles...
is now a wealthy
suburb of Paris."
I only bring this up
to illustrate that
the allure of
suburban living is
not directly tied to
affordability. Lots
of people can afford
an equivalent place
(in terms of size)
in the city and still
choose not to live
there for other
reasons. It is
not always true
that a city is
more desirable (on
average) or more
expensive than its
suburbs. For decades
after the
construction of
highways downtown
was a place to avoid,
not a place to aspire
to live.
\_ 10.6 miles today
constitutes a
suburb, but before
the automobile
it was full-on
rural.
\_ Actually 21km
which is 13 mi,
but who's
counting?
\_ You're clearly an
idiot who's never
spent any serious
time in New York.
-dans
\_ I was born and
raised there
and trying to
say that one of
the five parts
of NYC isn't a
part of NYC is
just dumb.
_______/
\_ Amazing. Not only
does your reading
comprehension suck,
but you're a liar
too! AWESOME! -dans |
| 11/23 |
|
| www.csua.org/u/kf7 -> findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3601/is_32_50/ai_114924887 March 24, 2004 Average rental rates for most industrial property categories declined in 2003 as US industrial vacancy rates continued to increase, according to the NAI 2004 Global Market Report (formerly the NAI Real Estate Planning Guide), an annual review of real estate values, trends and opportunities in 196 property markets worldwide. NAI partnered with Linneman Associates to produce this year's report, with noted real estate analyst Dr. Peter Linneman providing his expertise and insight to the global and regional overviews and forecasts. The average warehouse space vacancy rate was 802% in the year 2000. The average manufacturing space vacancy rate was 713% in the year 2000. Advertisement "Almost every real estate market remains challenged, particularly in "the commodity product sectors and in the bubble economy markets, due to abundant supply and limited demand," the NAI report says. However, "the US real estate markets are poised for growth, as new construction has been largely stopped and demand is starting to pick up, fueled by economic growth. economic recovery, positive absorption will cause vacancy rates to slowly fall over the next five years. Within 18 months, rental rates will stabilize and begin to creep upward. "As the economic picture brightens and corporate profits improve, leasing will improve. However, as interest rates rise (starting in the latter half of 2004), sale transactions will likely fall." Notably, the NAI Global Market Report addresses the issue of outsourcing jobs abroad: "The loss of manufacturing and call center jobs could certainly negatively affect the industrial sector ... But in the medium to long term, these availabilities will be filled by other companies, industries or government agencies that may not even exist today." |
| www.csua.org/u/kf8 -> www.naidirect.com/market_research/html/500316_marketrep.aspx?pageTitle=Market%20Research Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. |
| www.csua.org/u/kf9 -> www.naidirect.com/market_research/html/500341_marketrep.aspx?pageTitle=Market%20Research Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. |
| www.csua.org/u/kfa -> www.naidirect.com/market_research/html/500313_marketrep.aspx?pageTitle=Market%20Research Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. |
| Cities.com com, LookSmart and dozens of other leading search engines to bring you the best results. com metasearch search engine - The only search you need. |