In reply to docwyte :
He said if he was actually in DC it would be another $1k more.
But it's hard to compare X city v Y city based solely on number of bedrooms. Location, amenities, etc.
In reply to docwyte :
He said if he was actually in DC it would be another $1k more.
But it's hard to compare X city v Y city based solely on number of bedrooms. Location, amenities, etc.
What I don't get, in the DC or Denver or [insert large city here] examples, is why people continue to live in those areas. In theory, this is where a free market would correct itself. The cost of living would be so high the area is less desirable, and the traffic and compromises of living further are so terrible, people wouldn't be willing to do it. But clearly, it isn't the case. People are still willing to suffer 1+ hour commutes and unaffordable housing options to work in those areas.
In many cases there are jobs that pay well enough to cover the delta, but a lot of jobs come nowhere near covering the difference.
In reply to docwyte :
$2400 is the low end. I have coworkers paying $4400 in Pentagon City and my troop who is an e4 is paying $2600 for a 1 bedroom so she can walk to work.
Arlington is more expensive than most of Alexandria. And north Arlington (Ballston), Pentagon City, and Crystal City (all in Arlington) and very expensive. Old Town Alexandria is ridiculous. Then there's anything near the National Mall and the Potomac. Foggy Bottom has apartments in the millions.
I know parts of CO are crazy too.
In reply to ProDarwin :
Ican only speak for people in this area...DC is huge in Defense work and we weren't very friendly to teleworking until recently. Especially when you have to work so closely with Washington and politics. Most nations capitals tend to be densely populated. One thing is for sure is the sprawl here is huge!
I have no idea why people live in Chicago though lol
yupididit said:In reply to ProDarwin :
Ican only speak for people in this area...DC is huge in Defense work and we weren't very friendly to teleworking until recently. Especially when you have to work so closely with Washington and politics. Most nations capitals tend to be densely populated. One thing is for sure is the sprawl here is huge!
I have no idea why people live in Chicago though lol
Oh I am very familiar with the area, I was born in DC and lived in northern VA for about 28 years, as well as worked for several defense contractors. Much of your last post describes reasons I left the area. I couldn't make the living I wanted to there. I moved to an area with a much lower cost of living, got paid more money, and actually bought a house.
I miss a many things about the area, but ultimately the I just didn't see it as being sustainable on my salary.
Sadly despite swearing off defense contractors, through mergers and acquisitions I am now part of a defense megacorp again. 
In reply to ProDarwin :
I'm definitely with you there. My money went long in Texas. I do not plan to settle down in the DMV at all or even Virginia lol. I'm not a fan of 4 seasons lol.
yupididit said:In reply to docwyte :
$2400 is the low end. I have coworkers paying $4400 in Pentagon City and my troop who is an e4 is paying $2600 for a 1 bedroom so she can walk to work.
Arlington is more expensive than most of Alexandria. And north Arlington (Ballston), Pentagon City, and Crystal City (all in Arlington) and very expensive. Old Town Alexandria is ridiculous. Then there's anything near the National Mall and the Potomac. Foggy Bottom has apartments in the millions.
I know parts of CO are crazy too.
Maybe it is Arlington? Hell I don't remember. He's moved twice in the 1.5 years I've been mentoring him.
ProDarwin, bigger cities make sense to me from the entertainment, culture, and food options. I live in a relatively small metro at 1.6 million people and I don't think I could do something smaller. Unless it was within 45-50 minutes of the city center.
I like being somewhere where the entertainment options are more than camping and food options are more than a greasy diner, burger stand, and crummy Italian food.
In reply to z31maniac :
Please don't take my post as a criticism of cities. I'm just saying there is a point where employees can no longer afford to live near their place of employment... I would think we'd have hit that point in several large cities by now but apparently not.
ProDarwin said:What I don't get, in the DC or Denver or [insert large city here] examples, is why people continue to live in those areas. In theory, this is where a free market would correct itself. The cost of living would be so high the area is less desirable, and the traffic and compromises of living further are so terrible, people wouldn't be willing to do it. But clearly, it isn't the case. People are still willing to suffer 1+ hour commutes and unaffordable housing options to work in those areas.
In many cases there are jobs that pay well enough to cover the delta, but a lot of jobs come nowhere near covering the difference.
Crazy as it seems the options and entertainment is the appeal for me.
Major league sports, Football, baseball, Basket ball, Soccer, women's Basketball, Hockey. Minor league and yes we even have Polo. Theater ( so many I hate to attempt to count them) , arts, museums, college sports and colleges(10 that I can think off of the top of my head)
We have one of the biggest State Fairs. Texas is longer 14 days to our 10. So they get slightly more attendance. 4 seasons. Including winter which must freeze dry use because we are real long lived.
Lakes, so many lakes. Over 15,0005 acres or bigger. Rivers that feed 3 major bodies of water. The Great Lakes Hudson Bay, and the Mississippi.
Health care among the best in The world. Technology and an extremely vibrant party scene
Denver is a very desirable place to live due to access to all the outdoor activities. Also center of the country and large international airport. Along with all the standard amenities of a larger city
ProDarwin said:What I don't get, in the DC or Denver or [insert large city here] examples, is why people continue to live in those areas. In theory, this is where a free market would correct itself. The cost of living would be so high the area is less desirable, and the traffic and compromises of living further are so terrible, people wouldn't be willing to do it. But clearly, it isn't the case. People are still willing to suffer 1+ hour commutes and unaffordable housing options to work in those areas.
In many cases there are jobs that pay well enough to cover the delta, but a lot of jobs come nowhere near covering the difference.
Question to hopefully, answer your question- do such metrics also ask culture, or number of friends in the area, or even little things like hobbies? I ask because two of my best friends will be moving to California from Nebraska next year, one being a python dev and the other getting into the film industry- and from their trips (I haven't been to cali in decades) they basically said, that going from a city where they had to start the music scene to a place with THAT depth of culture makes it worthwhile alone. One also mentioned that north California had some of the nicest people they've ever met.
GIRTHQUAKE said:Question to hopefully, answer your question- do such metrics also ask culture, or number of friends in the area, or even little things like hobbies? I ask because two of my best friends will be moving to California from Nebraska next year, one being a python dev and the other getting into the film industry- and from their trips (I haven't been to cali in decades) they basically said, that going from a city where they had to start the music scene to a place with THAT depth of culture makes it worthwhile alone. One also mentioned that north California had some of the nicest people they've ever met.
All of those things are important, yes. Do I think everyone moving to a bigger city is doing it wrong? Hell no. Especially those in specific industries.
I'm surprised at the people that work a job type that is available elsewhere and in order to live in the DC area they have to make massive compromises, such as spending an extra $50k/year on housing, have a commute >1 hour, etc. without the compensation increase to make up for it. This is what I would expect the market to correct. Its clear that it hasn't yet though.
Can you put a time and $ value on culture? I can't specifically, but I can tell you it sure as berkeley isn't worth 2 hours a day in the car to me.
In reply to ProDarwin :
Same. There's gotta be some draw we aren't seeing, or experiencing, that makes it all worthwhile.
I know even living in a smaller city 2 hours away from the nearest major metro with nothing in between, we are highly limited in daycare, babysitting, and indoor activities.
Another thing is the salary and compensation delta. In our a small town, even Surgeons make less money than they would in Phoenix. Lots of times folks will move to Phoenix and settle down with a relatively short commute. Then their employer moves, or they decide to move someplace nicer, but further away from their employer. Before long, they've got the high paying job with the 1hr commute and all the things they wanted to avoid about city life.
What's frustrating is when city prices, or even, higher-than-city prices, come to rural areas. That's a result of folks who live in Phoenix with their high paying job wanting to buy their vacation or retirement home in the rural mountain town. They don't plan to live here, at least not full-time, or at least not until they retire, but they "use up" all the housing in the meantime.
In reply to ProDarwin :
You overlooked something. You don't have to pay todays high urban prices if you've been here before the prices went up.
It's entirely possible that the person moving to that city came from a place even more expensive. Expense wise this might be an improvement.
DC is expensive. I've got from friends/family that live in Adams Morgan and Columbia Heights. They pay well over 3k a month for a 2 bedroom. Have another friend that lives in a house in Mt. Pleasant. I don't wanna know what their rent is. But they all love it there. To them it's worth the cost of living. Sorta like how we like cars and no one understands why we like appliances. Some people enjoy living in city with a ton of amenities, it's worth it to them. I was considering moving there but couldn't find anything that would pay me enough to offset the cost of living.
ProDarwin said:In reply to z31maniac :
Please don't take my post as a criticism of cities. I'm just saying there is a point where employees can no longer afford to live near their place of employment... I would think we'd have hit that point in several large cities by now but apparently not.
Oh I didn't take it that way at all. Since we both WFH, I've actually started looking at smaller towns in NE OK that are still a quick drive to Tulsa. No NBA team, but at least we can go see comics and such.
And I want quick access to the roads in NE OK, SW Missouri, and NW Arkansas. When my fiance still had her place in Salina, OK, I could take my old BRZ and hit a bunch of different fun roads just over lunch. Fantastic for the old mental health.
ProDarwin said:In reply to z31maniac :
Please don't take my post as a criticism of cities. I'm just saying there is a point where employees can no longer afford to live near their place of employment... I would think we'd have hit that point in several large cities by now but apparently not.
This is kind of happening in my city. We see it with the service workers. Downtown is slowly dying because the low income service workers cannot afford to live anywhere near downtown. So the places that remain open rely on bored retirees that work to occupy their time. And in the suburbs, we see younger and younger kids working those jobs. My 15 year old son got a job in retail without even trying a few weeks ago.
But the 18 to 40 year olds are either staying with their parents or moving away to more affordable places. But since those cheaper places are getting harder and harder to find, most are staying with their parents. I'm 42, and I bought my current house 8 years ago. I would not be able to afford it today.
fanfoy said:ProDarwin said:In reply to z31maniac :
Please don't take my post as a criticism of cities. I'm just saying there is a point where employees can no longer afford to live near their place of employment... I would think we'd have hit that point in several large cities by now but apparently not.
This is kind of happening in my city. We see it with the service workers. Downtown is slowly dying because the low income service workers cannot afford to live anywhere near downtown. So the places that remain open rely on bored retirees that work to occupy their time. And in the suburbs, we see younger and younger kids working those jobs. My 15 year old son got a job in retail without even trying a few weeks ago.
But the 18 to 40 year olds are either staying with their parents or moving away to more affordable places. But since those cheaper places are getting harder and harder to find, most are staying with their parents. I'm 42, and I bought my current house 8 years ago. I would not be able to afford it today.
If we didn't have a bunch of animals, I would have sold our house at the peak, the end of last year. And moved us in to a nice townhome/condo/apartment downtown.
Ran across this video, apparently Australia has it worse than most although they share many of the basic issues affecting the rest of the first world...warning, contains a E36 M3load of cursing in audio and text:
How bad have you messed up when you have a housing crisis in a place best known for the venomosity, aggression, and size of its wildlife? 
The issue of most of their politicians owning rental and investment properties is an interesting point. If the EPA were packed with people heavily invested in fossil fuel companies the egregious conflict of interest would be obvious, yet that's basically what's happening with regard to housing probably everywhere and nobody bats an eye.
The common reason for that ignorance of conflict of interest is that old myth that "real estate doesn't hurt anyone".
It feels innocent. We're told that appreciation is just rising with inflation. You're not making money, per say, you're money just hasn't lost it's value.
And that's where its incorrect - when you own a ton of land, you're denying others from buying it, and those others are forced to make their lives somewhere else. It costs money to buy in a popular area, it also costs money to move someplace not as popular in order to save money on housing, not to mention opportunity costs.
Here's a response I got back from a business owner about why businesses might be inclined to leave commerical property vacant vs filling it at a lesser rate.
"Commercial buildings are a tax shelter. Building value is calculated based on the historical rents, but not the historical value produced for the community. So if the building was once rented out for $10,000/mo the building's value is some multiple of $10k.
The building value can then be used as leverage to buy other buildings, businesses, investments, etc. Then the economy or market changes, the value of rent drops, but if they lose the tenant and rent it for $8k/mo, the value of the building just dropped by 20%. The building owner used the value of his building to get more credit and now he's "underwater" so the bank is going to come to him for some money or to take his building.
So instead of getting a tenant at a lower rate and ruining the house of cards they've built on leverage, they leave it empty. And since they are making enough money with other investments, the loss of income from that rent is a written off on their taxes.
The other thing that is done when market rents are dropping....
Owners will provide "extras" so they don't have to drop the rent and screw up their leverage. They do deals like last 24 months free, full buildout, etc. Or they just leave it empty. The rent has stayed the same, but the price to the renter has been lowered with the freebies.
The above is a gross over simplification of the system written to demonstrate that the wealthy are not incentivized to optimize the value produced for the community, but the value used for leverage."
pheller said:The common reason for that ignorance of conflict of interest is that old myth that "real estate doesn't hurt anyone".
It feels innocent. We're told that appreciation is just rising with inflation. You're not making money, per say, you're money just hasn't lost it's value.
And that's where its incorrect - when you own a ton of land, you're denying others from buying it, and those others are forced to make their lives somewhere else. It costs money to buy in a popular area, it also costs money to move someplace not as popular in order to save money on housing, not to mention opportunity costs.
First, I want to thank you for not getting frustrated with people that don't agree with your views throughout these posts.
"Ton of land"...who is going to define what a ton of land is and how are we going to prevent the definition from drifting down to little mom and pop's that have one income property that represents a very large percent of their entire retirement portfolio.
"denying others from buying it"...within limits, every inanimate, non sentimental object has a price so it's not that people are being denied anything, it's just that some feel that the price is too high for whatever reason (some objective and some arbitrary). Here's the thing though, in most cases, the people that own high priced property today paid a lot of money for them, in relative terms, when they bought them in the past.
Any mechanism to get the properties transferred from the "haves" to the "wants" is just some form of redistribution...we've heard all kinds of schemes proposed in this thread but, in my mind, it all comes down to "you have something I want, hand it over cheap".
pheller said:Here's a response I got back from a business owner about why businesses might be inclined to leave commerical property vacant vs filling it at a lesser rate.
"Commercial buildings are a tax shelter. Building value is calculated based on the historical rents, but not the historical value produced for the community. So if the building was once rented out for $10,000/mo the building's value is some multiple of $10k.
The building value can then be used as leverage to buy other buildings, businesses, investments, etc. Then the economy or market changes, the value of rent drops, but if they lose the tenant and rent it for $8k/mo, the value of the building just dropped by 20%. The building owner used the value of his building to get more credit and now he's "underwater" so the bank is going to come to him for some money or to take his building.
So instead of getting a tenant at a lower rate and ruining the house of cards they've built on leverage, they leave it empty. And since they are making enough money with other investments, the loss of income from that rent is a written off on their taxes.
The other thing that is done when market rents are dropping....Owners will provide "extras" so they don't have to drop the rent and screw up their leverage. They do deals like last 24 months free, full buildout, etc. Or they just leave it empty. The rent has stayed the same, but the price to the renter has been lowered with the freebies.
The above is a gross over simplification of the system written to demonstrate that the wealthy are not incentivized to optimize the value produced for the community, but the value used for leverage."
Sounds like a great foundation for the next financial collapse at best (Subprime Mortgage Crisis 2: This time it's Commercial!) or possibly a long-running tax break for the rich that also eats into housing affordability at worst. This may also explain why commercial property hasn't eaten dirt as fast or hard as expected on the way out of the age of unnecessary commuting.
You'll need to log in to post.
