4 ms·

"Across the board, suburban neighborhoods have higher incomes, higher home values, higher shares of college grads, and higher shares of professionals than urban

"Across the board, suburban neighborhoods have higher incomes, higher home values, higher shares of college grads, and higher shares of professionals than urban neighborhoods. And suburbs do better than urban areas even when we compare neighborhoods in the same quartile of status." I think though that part of the problem is that housing in the suburbs is more expensive to begin with, so only people with a lot of money can afford to live there. If you have more money you'r emore likely to be a college grad and a "professional" (whatever that means). It's not that suburbia makes you rich, it's that you have to be rich to live in surburbia. There isn't an economic advantage to living there, you just have to be richer to live there.

api 8y ago
Housing in the suburbs was more expensive in the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s, but that is no longer true in many cities. Excluding the most affluent suburbs higher quality urban real estate is often more expensive. Suburbs closer to city centers are also generally more expensive unless they are in poor condition. I've wondered if the suburbs might not have been a major driver of American middle class growth in the late 20th century for a really simple reason: expansion fueled by automotive transit allowed people to escape the law of rent and the tyranny of landlords and the property market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent Eventually this expansion reached practical limits due to commute times and energy costs, so now we are back to the way it was before.
- magduf 8y ago
  >Excluding the most affluent suburbs higher quality urban real estate is often more expensive. This isn't really true in my experience. What is true is that housing is more expensive in terms of $/square foot in the middle of the city. However, this doesn't mean you'll find a cheaper place in the suburbs: if all the housing in a suburb is giant McMansions, they're still going to be more expensive than a small condo or efficiency in town. This is what I've found when I moved to my current city (DC); it just didn't save any money to live farther out because I don't want 2-5 bedrooms, as I'm a single guy. So it makes more sense for me to live closer to town in a small condo where I can enjoy the benefits of living closer, and my total rent is cheaper, and I don't have a giant house that I don't make use of, nor do I have to pay to heat/cool that giant house that I don't use.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
  > I've wondered if the suburbs might not have been a major driver of American middle class growth in the late 20th century for a really simple reason: expansion fueled by automotive transit allowed people to escape the law of rent and the tyranny of landlords and the property market. Nice insight. I know in Silicon Valley, people are not nearly as wealthy as the could be given their salaries because maybe 1/2 their monthly income goes to housing.
  - api 8y ago
    The Bay Area is the most absurd large scale property market in America, but it's really just the most extreme case of a disease found almost everywhere.
- criddell 8y ago
  > Housing in the suburbs was more expensive in the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s, but that is no longer true in many cities. I think it's still true. If I go far enough out of the city center, I could afford a 3000+ sq ft house. Close to downtown, it's an order of magnitude more money for that much space.
mtberatwork 8y ago
It seams to me that the closer you are to the city the more expensive the living becomes (at least on the East coast) unless you are willing to live in or close to the undesirable pockets of the metro area. It's not until you move quite far out before home prices begin to drop. Suburbs have expanded so much that people give themselves massive commutes just to barely afford a single family home.
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  This is true in all west coast cities I've been to, as well. It gets dramatically more expensive the closer you get to downtown. Having a condo down there would cost me twice as much as I paid for my large house in the 'burbs.
electricEmu 8y ago
The suburbs are much cheaper than Seattle proper. Granted, there are a few small communities that are very expensive. Mostly suburbs (the Rentons, Tacomas, and Monroes of Puget Sound) are very inexpensive compared to Seattle proper.
- spinach 8y ago
  Are the suburbs much cheaper only in comparable housing? What if a family that would have lived in a house in the suburbs lived in an apartment in the city? Isn't there cheaper housing options in the city?
  - electricEmu 8y ago
    You should look into Seattle’s housing problems, as there are many. Apartments are very expensive and most are not sized for families. The city is still zoned for single family homes, driving up the cost of the homes to near San Francisco levels. Some people are sleeping in parks, which is a cheaper option, granted.
  - sbov 8y ago
    When I was house hunting, 4 bedroom condos in a city basically didn't exist. Most of the ones I saw were 5-10x the price of a suburban 4 bedroom home - and that's ignoring the HOA fee, which many single family residences don't have.
    - StudentStuff 8y ago
      Cities discourage or outright prohibit anything beyond 2 bedroom MDUs being constructed. Its a great way to keep families from putting down roots in an area, or expanding much beyond 2 to 3 members. Seattle isn't quite as bad as other cities in pushing this policy, but there isn't any extra push to incentivize construction of 3+ bedroom apartments & condos (eg: additional building height/width allowances). IIRC our auditor wrote a report that came to the conclusion that we had way too few 3+ bedroom units in the city. If we want affordable housing (not "Affordable" housing, with heavy subsidies), set back & step back requirements need to be loosened for construction that includes valuable 3 & 4 bedroom condos and apartments. Note: HOAs in Seattle proper are very rare outside of condos. Ditto outside the city limits, though some small single family home enclaves choose to kneecap themselves with a HOA.
rootusrootus 8y ago
Even in Portland, suburbs are definitely cheaper. For what my house cost, I could get an itty-bitty condo downtown. And it would have a $700/month HOA fee. Only rich people, or young people who are okay blowing over half their income on housing, live downtown.
- scythe 8y ago
  Portland is a mild-climate city with a famously good transit system and a walkable downtown. If I had to guess, cities where it is comfortable to be outside (Mediterranean/subtropical/oceanic climates) tend to be more expensive in the inner districts, whereas cities where it is uncomfortable to be outside (continental/desert/alpine climates) tend to be more expensive in the car-based districts.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
Housing in the burbs is definitely cheaper per square foot and there are always places to rent. I think the issue with the study is that urban areas are often made up of rich/poor and a thinner middle class. The burbs are solidly middle class. I think the larger numbers of poor neighbourhoods in the city drag down the cities averages.
thousandautumns 8y ago
This is absolutely not the case in the metro areas I've lived in. Suburbs are generally much more affordable than the neighboring urban centers.

api 8y ago

Housing in the suburbs was more expensive in the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s, but that is no longer true in many cities. Excluding the most affluent suburbs higher quality urban real estate is often more expensive. Suburbs closer to city centers are also generally more expensive unless they are in poor condition. I've wondered if the suburbs might not have been a major driver of American middle class growth in the late 20th century for a really simple reason: expansion fueled by automotive transit allowed people to escape the law of rent and the tyranny of landlords and the property market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent Eventually this expansion reached practical limits due to commute times and energy costs, so now we are back to the way it was before.

magduf 8y ago
>Excluding the most affluent suburbs higher quality urban real estate is often more expensive. This isn't really true in my experience. What is true is that housing is more expensive in terms of $/square foot in the middle of the city. However, this doesn't mean you'll find a cheaper place in the suburbs: if all the housing in a suburb is giant McMansions, they're still going to be more expensive than a small condo or efficiency in town. This is what I've found when I moved to my current city (DC); it just didn't save any money to live farther out because I don't want 2-5 bedrooms, as I'm a single guy. So it makes more sense for me to live closer to town in a small condo where I can enjoy the benefits of living closer, and my total rent is cheaper, and I don't have a giant house that I don't make use of, nor do I have to pay to heat/cool that giant house that I don't use.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
> I've wondered if the suburbs might not have been a major driver of American middle class growth in the late 20th century for a really simple reason: expansion fueled by automotive transit allowed people to escape the law of rent and the tyranny of landlords and the property market. Nice insight. I know in Silicon Valley, people are not nearly as wealthy as the could be given their salaries because maybe 1/2 their monthly income goes to housing.
- api 8y ago
  The Bay Area is the most absurd large scale property market in America, but it's really just the most extreme case of a disease found almost everywhere.
criddell 8y ago
> Housing in the suburbs was more expensive in the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s, but that is no longer true in many cities. I think it's still true. If I go far enough out of the city center, I could afford a 3000+ sq ft house. Close to downtown, it's an order of magnitude more money for that much space.

mtberatwork 8y ago

It seams to me that the closer you are to the city the more expensive the living becomes (at least on the East coast) unless you are willing to live in or close to the undesirable pockets of the metro area. It's not until you move quite far out before home prices begin to drop. Suburbs have expanded so much that people give themselves massive commutes just to barely afford a single family home.

rootusrootus 8y ago
This is true in all west coast cities I've been to, as well. It gets dramatically more expensive the closer you get to downtown. Having a condo down there would cost me twice as much as I paid for my large house in the 'burbs.

electricEmu 8y ago

The suburbs are much cheaper than Seattle proper. Granted, there are a few small communities that are very expensive. Mostly suburbs (the Rentons, Tacomas, and Monroes of Puget Sound) are very inexpensive compared to Seattle proper.

spinach 8y ago
Are the suburbs much cheaper only in comparable housing? What if a family that would have lived in a house in the suburbs lived in an apartment in the city? Isn't there cheaper housing options in the city?
- electricEmu 8y ago
  You should look into Seattle’s housing problems, as there are many. Apartments are very expensive and most are not sized for families. The city is still zoned for single family homes, driving up the cost of the homes to near San Francisco levels. Some people are sleeping in parks, which is a cheaper option, granted.
- sbov 8y ago
  When I was house hunting, 4 bedroom condos in a city basically didn't exist. Most of the ones I saw were 5-10x the price of a suburban 4 bedroom home - and that's ignoring the HOA fee, which many single family residences don't have.
  - StudentStuff 8y ago
    Cities discourage or outright prohibit anything beyond 2 bedroom MDUs being constructed. Its a great way to keep families from putting down roots in an area, or expanding much beyond 2 to 3 members. Seattle isn't quite as bad as other cities in pushing this policy, but there isn't any extra push to incentivize construction of 3+ bedroom apartments & condos (eg: additional building height/width allowances). IIRC our auditor wrote a report that came to the conclusion that we had way too few 3+ bedroom units in the city. If we want affordable housing (not "Affordable" housing, with heavy subsidies), set back & step back requirements need to be loosened for construction that includes valuable 3 & 4 bedroom condos and apartments. Note: HOAs in Seattle proper are very rare outside of condos. Ditto outside the city limits, though some small single family home enclaves choose to kneecap themselves with a HOA.

rootusrootus 8y ago

Even in Portland, suburbs are definitely cheaper. For what my house cost, I could get an itty-bitty condo downtown. And it would have a $700/month HOA fee. Only rich people, or young people who are okay blowing over half their income on housing, live downtown.

scythe 8y ago
Portland is a mild-climate city with a famously good transit system and a walkable downtown. If I had to guess, cities where it is comfortable to be outside (Mediterranean/subtropical/oceanic climates) tend to be more expensive in the inner districts, whereas cities where it is uncomfortable to be outside (continental/desert/alpine climates) tend to be more expensive in the car-based districts.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

Housing in the burbs is definitely cheaper per square foot and there are always places to rent. I think the issue with the study is that urban areas are often made up of rich/poor and a thinner middle class. The burbs are solidly middle class. I think the larger numbers of poor neighbourhoods in the city drag down the cities averages.

thousandautumns 8y ago

This is absolutely not the case in the metro areas I've lived in. Suburbs are generally much more affordable than the neighboring urban centers.