The middle is debatable and probably depends on neighborhood.
I agree with this. I live in a supposedly MCOL city, but my housing, utility, and daycare costs are usually higher than those in HCOL areas based on budgets I've seen posted. Even car registration costs are higher. I guess the difference is that I COULD buy a SF house for $200,000 or less in my city. I wouldn't want to live in that house or neighborhood, though.
I'm a little surprised. I looked up COL for my specific suburb, and then for the main city we're a suburb of (Minneapolis). I was sure the COL would be higher in Minneapolis than my 'burb. Not so. My 'burb is 114, and Minneapolis is a 108.
MCOL either way.
FWIW, since I'm sure the budget critique thread that said Milwaukee was a VHCOL area was the inspiration for this thread, Milwaukee is an 89. Not only is is not VHCOL, it's actually LCOL.
FWIW, since I'm sure the budget critique thread that said Milwaukee was a VHCOL area was the inspiration for this thread, Milwaukee is an 89. Not only is is not VHCOL, it's actually LCOL.
The middle is debatable and probably depends on neighborhood.
I agree with this. I live in a supposedly MCOL city, but my housing, utility, and daycare costs are usually higher than those in HCOL areas based on budgets I've seen posted. Even car registration costs are higher. I guess the difference is that I COULD buy a SF house for $200,000 or less in my city. I wouldn't want to live in that house or neighborhood, though.
Agreed. My housing costs, day care costs, property taxes, etc. are all pretty consistent with what many people are paying in HCOL area, but I am well aware that my city is MCOL and that the higher costs are the result of my desire to live close to downtown, in an established neighborhood, etc. I could choose to live in a less desirable neighborhood with a longer commute, or send my kids to a school I don't like as well, and cut my costs dramatically. People in truly HCOL areas can't necessarily do that. COL is defined by how much money you have to spend to live, not how much you choose to spend. Pretty much any sizeable city has neighborhoods that are HCOL or VHCOL, but people can choose not to live in them.
Post by liveintheville on Jul 31, 2012 14:43:22 GMT -5
Interesting. My city is 165 and Boston is 154. Which makes sense considering Boston is comprised of so many varying neighborhoods and towns. Or village, as is the case with Allston
Post by ladybrettashley on Jul 31, 2012 14:57:24 GMT -5
I think it's interesting that the bestplaces calculator gives a different result that the cnn money calculator. I compared my current city (Detroit suburb) with my previous city (Kansas City MO) and in one, it said that Detroit was higher COL and the other was reversed. Based on that, I think the bestplaces one is more accurate because Detroit area is definitely more expensive than KC. The reason the cnn money one said the opposite is because it doesn't allow you to choose an individual suburb, it just goes off the entire metro area. Of course when you can buy a house in Detroit proper for $1, it brings the whole COL average down, but that is certainly not the case in the suburbs.
I'm a little surprised. I looked up COL for my specific suburb, and then for the main city we're a suburb of (Minneapolis). I was sure the COL would be higher in Minneapolis than my 'burb. Not so. My 'burb is 114, and Minneapolis is a 108.
MCOL either way.
FWIW, since I'm sure the budget critique thread that said Milwaukee was a VHCOL area was the inspiration for this thread, Milwaukee is an 89. Not only is is not VHCOL, it's actually LCOL.
Yeah. I'm just so curious where she came up with that. Or if she was just confused about the acronym, which is much more understandable.
Wait, someone said Milwaukee was VHCOL? That is crazyness.
Yes, in the budget critique thread. The OP stated that she lives in a VHCOL city, and later revealed that they live in Milwaukee. How anyone thinks that Milwaukee is VHCOL is beyond me.
I always considered Chicago to be on the higher end of MCOL. It is a 120 per the link posted earlier, so that seems to fit. our housing is reasonable compared to other larger cities, but we do have crazy taxes and I think food and alcohol is still really expensive.
Ms. Starry, I can't believe your brother has a SFH in the city (let alone one so cheap)! those are hard to come by, except for the $1M+ ones on the north side. very cool that he can actually see the Sear's Tower.
Yeah, I'd be curious about other expensive but not a city places (like the tristate area I'm sure around other hcol cities like San Fran or LA? Are there others?)
I just looked up the suburb in Northern VA that my ILs live in on that website, and the COL is listed as 212--significantly higher than NYC, DC, etc. I am sure the same is true of places like Greenwich, Westport, etc.
Yeah, I just looked up my DC suburb and it's 254. ETA: this is sort of my way of saying I don't 100% agree with this website.
Huh. The towns down the Peninsula to the South Bay are way more expensive than the actual city of SF. I'm surprised San Jose is 172 and SF is 185. I would think there would be a bigger gap.
I always considered Chicago to be on the higher end of MCOL. It is a 120 per the link posted earlier, so that seems to fit. our housing is reasonable compared to other larger cities, but we do have crazy taxes and I think food and alcohol is still really expensive.
Ms. Starry, I can't believe your brother has a SFH in the city (let alone one so cheap)! those are hard to come by, except for the $1M+ ones on the north side. very cool that he can actually see the Sear's Tower.
I think of Chicago as the high end of MCOL or low end of HCOL. It's not like Chicago is dirt cheap, just more affordable than many other large cities. I have two close friends in Chicago, and both own large SFHs in the city--far bigger than anything any of my friends in DC, let alone NYC, could afford even for the $1M+ they spent.
Ms. Starry, I can't believe your brother has a SFH in the city (let alone one so cheap)! those are hard to come by, except for the $1M+ ones on the north side. very cool that he can actually see the Sear's Tower.
He lives in Bridgeport near I-55. Perhaps that is a super shitty area but it seems ok when I visit him and he seems happy there.
it is a working class community, but there's nothing wrong with that. my dad was born and raised there. go sox, lol.
I don't understand? SJ's relative closeness in score to SF is because of Willow Glen? WG has some shitty areas too and there are other parts of SJ that are just as expensive.
I didn't think SJ would be more expensive than SF either.....that's why I was surpsrised they were as close as they were.
They are both big cities with some nice areas and some not so nice areas.
I consider Honolulu VHCOL, not only because of the price of housing and goods in general, but because of the lack of jobs and lower income compared to other HCOL/VHCOL cities.
This thread is telling me that maybe I should have moved to Chicago instead of DC, lol. Oh well, I think (read hope) that job oppurtunity will make for the increased cost of living.
Huh. The towns down the Peninsula to the South Bay are way more expensive than the actual city of SF. I'm surprised San Jose is 172 and SF is 185. I would think there would be a bigger gap.
The peninsula has a limited land area for expansion of housing and has desirable weather and the schools in most of those towns are also mistly good, so it drives prices up. There are some super super pricey cities on the peninsula. San Jose is really not cheap, the gap has been shrinking for years as tech grows.
I'd say groceries and such are the same through out the bay, though as well as sales tax. If you live in the city I'd guess parking would be a place you'd spend more than in the surrounding 'burbs, restaurants are also are more in SF.
Huh. The towns down the Peninsula to the South Bay are way more expensive than the actual city of SF. I'm surprised San Jose is 172 and SF is 185. I would think there would be a bigger gap.
The peninsula has a limited land area for expansion of housing and has desirable weather and the schools in most of those towns are also mistly good, so it drives prices up. There are some super super pricey cities on the peninsula. San Jose is really not cheap, the gap has been shrinking for years as tech grows. I'd say groceries and such are the same through out the bay, though as well as sales tax. If you live in the city I'd guess parking would be a place you'd spend more than in the surrounding 'burbs, restaurants are also are more in SF.
This definitely seems to be the case. We are deciding whether to expand or buy a bigger place and so I've been looking and you really can't get much in the market right now. We had my friend do a real estate analysis for our house and in speaking with her she said it's a really tough market for buyers. Inventory is really low.