3 ms·
> Right, but what matters is the housing price where people are. We're not talking about houses in the middle of nowhere. These are major urban population cent
by dcolkitt 6y ago
> Right, but what matters is the housing price where people are.
We're not talking about houses in the middle of nowhere. These are major urban population centers.
The Houston metro area has 7 million people. The Phoenix metro area has 4.9 million people. Tampa metro has 3.1 million people. Houston and Phoenix are both larger than the Bay Area metro is currently. Tampa's just shy of the size of Seattle.
Nor is it the case that these are depressed areas with hollowed out job markets and no opportunity. They all have substantially lower unemployment rates than the national average. Well below the Bay Area in fact. All three of these metros have large-scale employers with plenty of high-skilled jobs. All three have economic growth rates and business formation rates far above the national average.
- dylanh 6y agoPretty much everyone I know is being priced out of market in the tampa bay area. Rent under $1k/mo means looking on the extreme periphery and suffering a long commute.
- WarOnPrivacy 6y ago> Pretty much everyone I know is being priced out of market in the Tampa bay area. Rents in the neighboring counties have been climbing steeply for years. If you were looking at an $850/mo property in 2012, expect to pay about $1500/mo for the same place now. source: 30 year Tampa area resident
- choward 6y ago> Houston and Phoenix are both larger than the Bay Area metro is currently. Not sure where you're getting that number from. Are you just referring to San Francisco / Oakland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco%E2%80%93Oakland%E2%80%93Berkeley,_CA_Metropolitan_Statistical_Area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco%E2%80%93Oakland%...)? That completely leaves out San Jose and many other areas. The entire Bay Area is nearly 10 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area)
- dcolkitt 6y agoYou are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, I can't edit the post, but yes I did mistakenly write Bay Area where I meant SF metro.
- pnutjam 6y agoSure, when you look at the whole metro area, you can get good prices. Most people don't consider the whole metro area. There is usually a specific area they want to live in, to be closer to family, to get better schools, to be closer to work, etc. I'm in Indianapolis and just look at the difference across this one affordable metro area. https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/in/indianapolis/real-estate https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/in/indianapolis/real-estat... Your other point about houses being "better" is also false. When you compare to economic items, you don't compare against something you can buy and something you can't buy anymore. The houses for sale are the "better" houses. That's the simple fact for Americans. It's because our culture only builds for the wealthy. The poorer get their hand me down houses.
- maxlamb 6y agoI'm not sure where you're getting your data but median house prices have risen significantly in Houston metro area since 2012 (over 50%) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS26420Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS26420Q
- dublinben 6y agoWhen you compare housing + transportation costs, those cities aren't significantly more affordable than the Bay Area or Seattle.[0] City, H+T % of income New York City, 39% San Francisco, 41% Seattle, 46% Houston, 45% Phoenix, 49% Tampa, 56% Cities with "affordable housing" but expensive, car-dependant transportation are less affordable than more transit-friendly cities. [0] https://htaindex.cnt.org/map/ https://htaindex.cnt.org/map/