I don't know. Big expensive houses aren't equivalent to smaller more affordable ones.
On a hillside near me, they proposed a development of 12 moderate sized homes which would have sold quickly - because there is no inventory at the price point. Instead, the town blocked that because it doesn't like new development. The same land became three very large lots, for giant houses. Only one was built and has been sitting empty for a year. The $6 Million and up market moves very slowly if it doesn't have something spectacular going on (these lots don't have amazing views to command those prices nor the less steep yards to enjoy other amenities).
We’re talking about somewhat different things. I’m talking specifically about infill, not developing new land. I live along the Caltrain line and there were plans for a big multi-use housing development on a lot that’s basically empty. You had “you’re going to block my bay view” NIMBY folks aligning with those who voted against it because it wasn’t “affordable.” It was such a weird coalition of people that didn’t make any sense.
It failed (and now my town is being sued because we didn’t meet our required minimum for new housing.) I think the “affordable housing” flag often gets waved as faux liberalism when really it’s the same NIMBY folks who’ve just coopted the language.
Ah, yes. I've see affordable housing usually used to pressure developers to add more units, not shut down development completely. Here, the NIMBY/no growth types usually argue environmental factors, not affordability.
For the purpose of the conversation, this is how the HUD defines affordable housing:
Affordable Housing - The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) designates housing as affordable if the gross costs to live in that housing unit, including utilities, do not exceed 30 percent of the gross income of the resident(s).
Area Median Income (AMI) - To determine whether housing costs or rents are affordable for residents of a certain community, HUD uses the area median income (AMI). In a designated area, half of the population makes more than the AMI, and the other half makes less than the AMI.
For example, the AMI for a single -person household in San Francisco is $82,900; in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), Ohio, $45,660.
HUD designates households to certain income groups based on their income relative to the AMI:
– “Extremely Low Income”: Below 30 percent of AMI – “Very Low Income”: Below 50 percent of AMI – “Low Income”: Below 80 percent of AMI – “Moderate Income”: Between 80 and 120 percent of AMI
Note: All of these levels are adjusted based on how many people are in a household.
We’re talking about somewhat different things. I’m talking specifically about infill, not developing new land. I live along the Caltrain line and there were plans for a big multi-use housing development on a lot that’s basically empty. You had “you’re going to block my bay view” NIMBY folks aligning with those who voted against it because it wasn’t “affordable.” It was such a weird coalition of people that didn’t make any sense.
It failed (and now my town is being sued because we didn’t meet our required minimum for new housing.) I think the “affordable housing” flag often gets waved as faux liberalism when really it’s the same NIMBY folks who’ve just coopted the language.
Ah, yes. I've see affordable housing usually used to pressure developers to add more units, not shut down development completely. Here, the NIMBY/no growth types usually argue environmental factors, not affordability.
If you haven’t read it yet, you might like the book Golden Gates. It talks about both of those things, and you’re right. It’s faux concern for some progressive issue like environmental concerns or “affordability” — but when you really look at who’s raising the argument and why, it’s often rooted in plain old selfishness. Just because people are throwing around progressive buzzwords (and you have to in this part of the country) doesn’t mean they’re actually progressive.
Housing is bananas right now. A house with our exact layout just went on the market this week for $130k more than we paid for ours in 2014. And the lot is horrible (right under those huge power lines that normally knock $50k off the price right away). Now just because it's listed for that doesn't mean it will sell for that, but I'm guessing the realtor wouldn't have listed it if she didn't think she could get it.
Rental prices falling is a good thing though. Especially in places like NYC where it's been so unaffordable.
Will be interesting to see what happens in a couple years when interest rates eventually rise.
My neighbor's house - with interior renovations straight out of the 70s - just sold for $95k more than what we paid for ours. Basically the same house/layout/lot size. The new owner has already torn out 8 TONS of fake wood paneling, drop ceilings, carpet, kitchen, bathroom fixtures, etc. There are bidding wars in my area over houses that are already $100k more than what they would have sold for 5 years ago.
Housing is bananas right now. A house with our exact layout just went on the market this week for $130k more than we paid for ours in 2014. And the lot is horrible (right under those huge power lines that normally knock $50k off the price right away). Now just because it's listed for that doesn't mean it will sell for that, but I'm guessing the realtor wouldn't have listed it if she didn't think she could get it.
Rental prices falling is a good thing though. Especially in places like NYC where it's been so unaffordable.
Will be interesting to see what happens in a couple years when interest rates eventually rise.
My neighbor's house - with interior renovations straight out of the 70s - just sold for $95k more than what we paid for ours. Basically the same house/layout/lot size. The new owner has already torn out 8 TONS of fake wood paneling, drop ceilings, carpet, kitchen, bathroom fixtures, etc. There are bidding wars in my area over houses that are already $100k more than what they would have sold for 5 years ago.
Yeah--whoever buys this house will still have to dump a ton of money into renovations. Only time will tell what happens to the market, but I do feel nervous for people who are buying at these inflated rates. But then again...maybe they're not inflated. No one knows.
I feel like the real key to affordable housing is keeping the market steady by having the correct supply of housing, both new builds and turnovers. Do what Minneapolis did and restrict new construction in the city limits to multi-unit buildings. Don't do what Philly does, which is give a 10-year tax abatement for new builds, which encourages the destruction of older homes to build larger, new ones on the same lot.
Ah, yes. I've see affordable housing usually used to pressure developers to add more units, not shut down development completely. Here, the NIMBY/no growth types usually argue environmental factors, not affordability.
If you haven’t read it yet, you might like the book Golden Gates. It talks about both of those things, and you’re right. It’s faux concern for some progressive issue like environmental concerns or “affordability” — but when you really look at who’s raising the argument and why, it’s often rooted in plain old selfishness. Just because people are throwing around progressive buzzwords (and you have to in this part of the country) doesn’t mean they’re actually progressive.
Marin has such a stranglehold on development, it's insane. Many towns have narrow street into the town access, sometimes one lane, at best two. They specifically didn't widen them because it would increase the population the town could support and therefore allow for development.
The housing getting shot down near you for not being affordable, is affordable to enough people to lower pressure on housing stock. Around here, developers don't want to build unless it really expensive stuff. The last "starter house" (under 2K sqft) flipped by a builder was sold for $3 Million. (THat's triple what it would have been a decade ago) Mostly they are rebuilding the bigger, more expensive stuff.
I feel like the real key to affordable housing is keeping the market steady by having the correct supply of housing, both new builds and turnovers. Do what Minneapolis did and restrict new construction in the city limits to multi-unit buildings. Don't do what Philly does, which is give a 10-year tax abatement for new builds, which encourages the destruction of older homes to build larger, new ones on the same lot.
Part of the problem is that it's hard to predict the "correct supply" and codify restrictions, especially now with how fluid populations are right now. It's only going to get worse as we start adding climate refugees into the mix.
I feel like the real key to affordable housing is keeping the market steady by having the correct supply of housing, both new builds and turnovers. Do what Minneapolis did and restrict new construction in the city limits to multi-unit buildings. Don't do what Philly does, which is give a 10-year tax abatement for new builds, which encourages the destruction of older homes to build larger, new ones on the same lot.
Portland metro has the urban growth boundary - forcing infill and reducing sprawl. It’s worked pretty good at that, but might be contributing to the housing shortage. Except it seems most major cities also have a housing shortage, so I’ve never been sure how much it really contributes vs people attacking it for political reasons.
Post by plutosmoon on Feb 26, 2021 13:04:20 GMT -5
I just sold my house due to divorce, but was unable to find a new home to purchase in my small city. Houses are selling in hours, my house sold on day 1 for asking price. I was happy to find a rental in my city and will stay there for a while. The area I live in is somewhat rural and very touristy, so we've seen an influx of people from the cities during the pandemic. We sold our house for quite a bit more than we paid for it just 3 years ago, this spike in value was a large reason I couldn't buy out my ex, but it also meant I couldn't really afford to buy a similar house, if I could even find one. There are currently less than 30 SFH houses for sale and only 4 rentals on zillow in my city of about 13k. This is less inventory than a usual winter. Most multi families are being bought by investors. My city is an old mill city that's gentrifying, so many flips, so the housing issue isn't entirely new.
I'm not seeing lower rents here, sounds like that's happening more in the bigger cities. I'm renting for a year or two and hope the market gets better for buyers. I'm hoping I don't end up priced out, my small city was the affordable area in the region. In my city just pre-pandemic you could still find 50s ranches or capes for $150,000-200,000, the higher end would likely have some recent updates, or rent a 2 bedroom for under $1000 a month, often with heat included. I'd say most similar houses this year are now going for 200-250, 2 bedroom rentals seem to be 1000-1200, no utilities other than water included, but there is still the occasional under $1000. I'm seeing less rentals that include heat, which is a big deal here. There seems to be a lot of competition for apartments, so landlords are super picky. For reference the median household income in my city is around $40,000, so these numbers may seem low to some in higher COL areas, affordable housing is a huge issue here.
At any given time, there are 0-3 SFH listed below 1 million dollars in my town. All of them are old, need major updates or work, and usually have one small bathroom. Starter homes aren't really a thing here-people live in condos, which are also outrageously expensive.
My street is a mix of huge 4000+ sq feet Tudor homes, enormous new builds, and 2 ranch homes from the 50's that have refused to sell to the developers that knock every spring.
When we bought, we had looked for 3 years. We only bid on 2 other homes in that time as once renovations were done that were needed on other homes, we were priced out. So many cash buyers and investors. We were the winning bid because we waived inspection up to a certain number, offered $$$$ over asking, and gave the seller whatever timeline she wanted.
@@@@
I can not wait to go back to small condo living and really have no desire or need to ever own a home in this town once its just H and I again.
H and I are never going to be able to buy a home. Even though we're miles ahead, financially, of where we were even 5 years ago.
The same is true for me. This used to stress me out, but we decided several years ago that we're going to stay in our current apartment forever. But if we wanted a change, we'd be stuck.
I wonder sometimes who all this expensive new construction is supposed to be for. Milliennials have struggled to establish themselves financially and get to a point where they can afford homeownership. And I can't imagine that aging Boomers want to move into McMansions and take on that upkeep.
As the boomers move into assisted living or aren’t with us anymore, I can’t see how that won’t impact the market. I wouldn’t be shocked if owning property winds up being not a great investment. Owning your own home that’s a good size for your needs, sure. But a monstrosity that’s difficult to maintain, that you’re banking on funding your retirement from? I think like with many things, the children of the boomers should not count on things working out the way they did for our parents.
My ILs have a 3600 sq ft not updated monstrosity on a 2 acre lot that they want us to buy off them for a deal when they need to move to a retirement home. No freaking way. (not helpful but) we just built our own house two years ago at 2400sq ft which is more than enough for us. Initially it seemed too big, but now that DH will be WFH likely forever we are super grateful to have the extra initially empty front den. Al the houses in ILs neighbourhood are starting to flip over as the residents hit their 70s and 3600sqft is just too much. Mostly GenXers buying for now, but there are not as many as the boomers around. @@@ No families with small kids can afford these homes.
Uggh so many starter homes here were renovated and turned into pricey rentals, and all new builds are 2-4x the cost of starter homes.
I wonder sometimes who all this expensive new construction is supposed to be for. Milliennials have struggled to establish themselves financially and get to a point where they can afford homeownership. And I can't imagine that aging Boomers want to move into McMansions and take on that upkeep.
H and I are never going to be able to buy a home. Even though we're miles ahead, financially, of where we were even 5 years ago.
The same is true for me. This used to stress me out, but we decided several years ago that we're going to stay in our current apartment forever. But if we wanted a change, we'd be stuck.
I'm here as well, at this point. The median housing price in my county at the beginning of this year was $649k. I can't even begin to afford that without significant help. Too many years working for social services nonprofits, not being paid what I was worth, set me far behind on trying to achieve that.
Uggh so many starter homes here were renovated and turned into pricey rentals, and all new builds are 2-4x the cost of starter homes.
Yup. Every 2 story, 3 bed, 1.5 bath house that came on the market in our neighborhood that we wanted to actually buy and live in was bought for cash and then torn down to make a 3 story, 900k monstrosity- and I just don’t understand how many people can honestly afford to be buying all these. We could not compete with the builders in our neighborhood.
Just one $900k monstrosity? Because here we are lucky if it's just one. Developers buy a dilapidated house on a decent-sized lot and they build at least two $900k monstrosities.
And SFHs are rare for new builds unless they could fit more than one SFH where one SFH previously stood. 2-family homes are all the rage here. And while people complain about that...I think it's actually a good thing, selfishly, because my mom might move in with us one day and it'd be nice for her to have her own separate apartment. I anticipate as boomers age and as housing becomes more unaffordable, multigenerational living will become all the rage. At least among white families where it hasn't been as common as it has been for families of color. But, obviously 2-family homes aren't enough since they're still unaffordable for most people even when pooling resources together between two households.
Uggh so many starter homes here were renovated and turned into pricey rentals, and all new builds are 2-4x the cost of starter homes.
I wonder sometimes who all this expensive new construction is supposed to be for. Milliennials have struggled to establish themselves financially and get to a point where they can afford homeownership. And I can't imagine that aging Boomers want to move into McMansions and take on that upkeep.
Around here it does seem to be mostly boomers who buy the very large expensive homes.
Uggh so many starter homes here were renovated and turned into pricey rentals, and all new builds are 2-4x the cost of starter homes.
I wonder sometimes who all this expensive new construction is supposed to be for. Milliennials have struggled to establish themselves financially and get to a point where they can afford homeownership. And I can't imagine that aging Boomers want to move into McMansions and take on that upkeep.
Those in-between. My friends all keep selling their 3bed 3bath, 2500 SQ ft homes and buying 4-5k sq feet homes - because their kids are growing and they "need the space". Which I get, there are definitely days where I think our 2K sq ft home feels small. But in about 10-15 years, they are all going to want to downsize. I just don't think that happened much in the generation before us. Most of us had parents that bought homes and lived in them to raise their families and **maybe** downsized to something smaller later in life.
I wonder sometimes who all this expensive new construction is supposed to be for. Milliennials have struggled to establish themselves financially and get to a point where they can afford homeownership. And I can't imagine that aging Boomers want to move into McMansions and take on that upkeep.
Around here it does seem to be mostly boomers who buy the very large expensive homes.
Around here it's GenX stepping up in size of house or Millennials who have moved from HCOL areas to our MCOL area (usually with telework jobs). As I noted earlier - starter homes in less desirable areas are being snatched up by older iGens who have reliable work... and don't mind a smaller 2bed house. Boomers are selling the larger houses and making ALL the money, but many of the boomers have bought land and are now building more modest, but high end homes further from town in the woods and then sinking their extra $ into second homes in other, warmer, states.
Yup. Every 2 story, 3 bed, 1.5 bath house that came on the market in our neighborhood that we wanted to actually buy and live in was bought for cash and then torn down to make a 3 story, 900k monstrosity- and I just don’t understand how many people can honestly afford to be buying all these. We could not compete with the builders in our neighborhood.
Just one $900k monstrosity? Because here we are lucky if it's just one. Developers buy a dilapidated house on a decent-sized lot and they build at least two $900k monstrosities.
And SFHs are rare for new builds unless they could fit more than one SFH where one SFH previously stood. 2-family homes are all the rage here. And while people complain about that...I think it's actually a good thing, selfishly, because my mom might move in with us one day and it'd be nice for her to have her own separate apartment. I anticipate as boomers age and as housing becomes more unaffordable, multigenerational living will become all the rage. At least among white families where it hasn't been as common as it has been for families of color. But, obviously 2-family homes aren't enough since they're still unaffordable for most people even when pooling resources together between two households.
Well this is center city Philly, so these are TH and the lot is literally the size of the house lol
Am I the only one to sing "Where have all the cowboys gone?" every time I read the title of this thread?
No, I posted that upthread.
I'm glad to know I'm not the only one! (Next time I'll try to remember to read before posting.) Here's hoping we're not still hearing it when we try to go to sleep tonight.
Uggh so many starter homes here were renovated and turned into pricey rentals, and all new builds are 2-4x the cost of starter homes.
I wonder sometimes who all this expensive new construction is supposed to be for. Milliennials have struggled to establish themselves financially and get to a point where they can afford homeownership. And I can't imagine that aging Boomers want to move into McMansions and take on that upkeep.
My parents and their friends are all boomer immigrants living out the American dream. They have many boomer friends that moved into giant houses after the kids all left. Even my parents didn't like living in a 2BR/2BA townhouse rental either when they sold their house out-of-state and moved back to my state even though it was just the 2 of them. They bought a 2500 sq. ft. house when they found one they liked but it took them 7 years. And then there are my IL's. They also just moved to a 4K sq ft monstrosity and sold their 2000 sq. ft. house they had lived in for 30 years. Though they did move to a much more desirable town and location so it shouldn't be hard to sell if and when they need to do so. They also didn't look for a house with a full bath on the first floor as they will need one now. MIL broke her hip as she was giving my husband the house tour on his first visit there.
@@@@@@ My parents and the IL's all wanted more space for my kids to be able to come over and run around. Lots of their boomer friends feel similarly about the grandkids. Their friends mostly haven't moved to assisted living unless one of the spouses has a condition requiring around-the-clock care. Good for them, I guess.
I'm glad to know I'm not the only one! (Next time I'll try to remember to read before posting.) Here's hoping we're not still hearing it when we try to go to sleep tonight.
Post by icedcoffee on Feb 26, 2021 16:43:48 GMT -5
@
I have some family who bought an over 4,000 sq ft house and both of their children are out of college. It’s insane to me. I cannot wait to downsize and our house is no where near that size.
I mean my in laws bought a 4 bedroom 3.5 bath house on a large piece of land well after all their kids were grown. Similar to the house they had before they were empty nesters. Their excuse is they want room for everyone the one time a year we are all together. I don't get it.
Also, I hate the idea that part of the solution is building new homes. Especially when the homes being built just aren't the homes millions of Americans need or want or can afford.
The idea that new housing needs to be “affordable housing” has been a bit of a red herring in the Bay Area, and has often blocked development of desperately-needed projects.
But I know there’s one pro-housing school of thought that argues it doesn’t matter if the new housing is “affordable” because it frees up inventory and puts downward price pressure on older homes, so everyone benefits.
Granted, this is Bay Area specific, where we have a severe housing shortage — and the argument often involves building new multi-unit housing near transit and job centers, not far-flung housing divisions that contribute to sprawl. But it has swayed me toward “just get it done.”
So my take....we need to stop building new homes generally because holy environmental impact, but we also need A LOT more housing in places that can actually support a car free lifestyle so that prices in those areas are achievable for the entire range of SES's. What we need ZERO more of is suburban single family homes. Which...looks round...most of us probably live in. (I said most, don't notallPCERs me)
I was goign to actually read the article to see what factors it discusses, but I'm already out of NYT for the month. booooooo.
so anecdote time wherein I babble about liberals opposing development and claiming it's because it's too expensive or too impactful, with a side of development financing and zoning and wonder how much of this is in the article:
We have a designated TOD (transit oriented development) near my house over at the light rail station, there is a large development approved for literally on top of the station (like in the former giant parking lot - they built a parking garage and are on the second of three apartment towers. I think ther's also a retail component planned, they've built a gym already, though that was unfortuante covid timing because I'm pretty sure it immiedtely closed again. boo) They are in the process of pulling permits for the second building and asked for permission to add an extra two stories to the building because that would let them pencil out the affordable housing on site and still hold everything how it needed to be for their financing. (I don't think most people realize how much the banks actually control development patterns. Nobody is out there building apartment towers or townhouse infill out of pocket. Nobody. Like, I've worked on projects backed by some rich ass people, and they're all financed through traditional banks. And by and large the banks are pretty damn conservative in what they'll back. They have their ratios and their numbers and if you can't hit them because you're trying to take a risk on something not squarely in their market analysis or with a high enough margin (like smaller SFH's, or little modest duplexes) you get zero dollars. That's why the government programs we have exist, because otherwise it would be literally impossible to build any of this.
So...back to my town. Apartment towers on top of the light rail. They want to add two stories so they can afford their housing requirement on site instead of paying a fee in liu. My neighborhood association starting sending emails around giving everybody instructions on how to oppose it. because OF COURSE you have to oppose it! it's too dense! it's too much! it's too much impact! think of the roads! think of the schools! WE CAN'T JUST KEEP BUILDING STUFF!!! But woudl these people oppose tearing down an older home in the neighborhood (which we have a ton of - the newer housing stock in my town is mostly from the 60s. A good chunk of it is early 1900's mill housing. Plus things scattered all through those eras.) to build a larger home? Nope. no emails about the last three gut jobs in town. It's wildly disingenuous. I responded to the emails and said that I hoped if my neighbors who were in favor of the development as a smart choice for growth in the county and a good way to increase our affordable housing stock in a sustainable development pattern would ALSO write to the council and tell them so. The pushback I got was pretty much incoherent. THE COUNTY IS PICKIING ON US! THEY'RE ONLY PUTTING DEVELOPMENT OVER HERE! THEY'RE IGNORING THEIR OWN PLAN! IT's all just totally untrue.
But in a career roughly 50% in land development - they're just like EVERY SINGLE OTHER white ass surburban community out there. (black urban neighborhoods and white urban neighborhoods each have their own flavor of opposition/issues and it's usually pretty nuanced IME, but damn white suburban folks are predictable as shit)
and then you add in the inherent issues of the way our zoning codes are written, and NO WONDER the housing market is just a total mess.
Now I really want to know what the NYT article said...