4 ms·

I agree with the author that the real estate agent described something most people want, and not necessarily what the author himself wanted. I think it's unfort

by godot 5y ago

I agree with the author that the real estate agent described something most people want, and not necessarily what the author himself wanted. I think it's unfortunate that the agent didn't hear what the author wanted and just pointed him to the general public's preference anyway. However, I disagree with his take that America's housing development model is to develop into outskirt suburbs, let middle class move in, let it deteriorate in 30 years, and build more outskirts. Now, maybe I live in California and things are different. In the bay area even old areas with very old houses rise in values, and in fact, they rise more than newer developments. Demand for housing everywhere in the bay area + surrounding areas are high regardless of how new they are and how deep in town or out in the outskirts they are. Areas developed 30+ years ago continue to have high demand from middle to wealthy families. These areas didn't just not deteriorate but have grown into larger and more modern areas and in some cases developed their own downtown. Admittedly California and bay area specifically is probably a bubble and behaves differently than much of America. But I have a feeling more than a few popular cities are going through something similar. Appleton might not be, and maybe he's right that the new development outskirts will deteriorate in 30 years, but I doubt that'll be the case in new developments around Phoenix or Denver.

ocschwar 5y ago
> Now, maybe I live in California and things are different. You live in California and things are different. You live there because you want to be in a specific location and near a some-what-specific crowd of people for work reasons. In the rest of the country, (most of it), that is not the consideration people have.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
majormajor 5y ago
It might be a thriving city vs smaller town thing. Thriving cities outside of California (say Atlanta or Dallas) have valuable real estate in central locations just like in California cities. Nobody wants to be on the furthest outskirts with the furthest commute - it's more just an exhaust valve for growth so you don't get the same absolutely insane prices and resulting problems like homelessness to the same level.
- ska 5y ago
  > Thriving cities outside of California (say Atlanta or Dallas) have valuable real estate in central locations just like in California cities. Unless things have really changed recently, this isn't true of, say Houston. It was mostly sprawl for most people, and no real functional inner core. There is the inner-loop vs outside, but it really isn't the same dynamic as other big metros (NB LA is it's own weirdness).
  - majormajor 5y ago
    I'm not as familiar with Houston in particular, but I think the important note for most of these places is that while there are expensive "central locations" that isn't the same as saying prices are centered in downtown (which in many cities comes from a legacy of racist policy/actions, though this is rather aside from the point of them being different from what the article linked here describes about a constant outward-migration and abandonment cycle, vs a particular moment in history). In Dallas and Atlanta, those areas are largely north of downtown. In LA, they're largely west. IIRC Austin and San Antonio had hot spots in the northern parts of the city too, but I'm less up to date there.
    - ska 5y ago
      To me "expensive suburb/exurb" is really not comparable to urban density. If all you are talking about are fancy HOAs and gated communities then I think it's a different beast.
DubiousPusher 5y ago
Yes, this is different. Not because you live in California but because you live in the bay area. Urbanization has been so intense that a lot of large metro areas have avoided this fate. The land values rise so high that it becomes "worth it" to fix up the houses. The author alludes to this when talking about how some downtown lots with high enough real estate value are refurbished while those without it are dozed. But this is not the case throughout the vast spread of rural towns in America. Some are shrinking, some are stagnant and some are growing but still not sustaining land prices that unlock the capital necessary to significantly overhaul structures.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  High land prices don't "unlock" capital, they drain it away from productive use. All other things being equal, it would be far more preferable to have cheaper land - in fact, urban renewal often occurs in cheaper areas, with negative gentrification setting in later as land prices spike upwards due to speculation.
  - majormajor 5y ago
    High land prices don't happen in a vacuum and then just magically drain productivity, they reflect demand. And demand from people with lots money generally means an area that is already currently productive - so wishing a productive area could have lower land prices is a bit of a non-starter. The limiting factor for the prices isn't policy, it's the availability of land (here Texas cities have a big advantage over coastal California ones that have to deal with mountains and oceans). DFW airport is over half the size of the whole city of SF, and larger than Manhattan. That sort of excess of availability is how you end up with cheaper land.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - DubiousPusher 5y ago
    They unlock capital for homeowners by giving them something to borrow against. In my 1980 built neighborhood there are three kinds of homeowners. 1) Low income longtime owners who can't renovate and are being replaced 2) Long time middle income residents who can't cash flow remodel but who can afford to borrow thanks to high appreciation. 3) New, affluent owners who buy houses that have been renovated or buy a house and cash flow renovation or take a massive mortgage (again largely backed by the high land value) and renovate. If your community's land prices haven't appreciated significantly then a lot of the capital you would access for refurbishment isn't available. That removes in place renovators and your community faces two fates. Slow blight as original owners exceed their most productive years or replacement as affluent buyers move in.

by godot 5y ago

ocschwar 5y ago

> Now, maybe I live in California and things are different. You live in California and things are different. You live there because you want to be in a specific location and near a some-what-specific crowd of people for work reasons. In the rest of the country, (most of it), that is not the consideration people have.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

majormajor 5y ago

It might be a thriving city vs smaller town thing. Thriving cities outside of California (say Atlanta or Dallas) have valuable real estate in central locations just like in California cities. Nobody wants to be on the furthest outskirts with the furthest commute - it's more just an exhaust valve for growth so you don't get the same absolutely insane prices and resulting problems like homelessness to the same level.

ska 5y ago
> Thriving cities outside of California (say Atlanta or Dallas) have valuable real estate in central locations just like in California cities. Unless things have really changed recently, this isn't true of, say Houston. It was mostly sprawl for most people, and no real functional inner core. There is the inner-loop vs outside, but it really isn't the same dynamic as other big metros (NB LA is it's own weirdness).
- majormajor 5y ago
  I'm not as familiar with Houston in particular, but I think the important note for most of these places is that while there are expensive "central locations" that isn't the same as saying prices are centered in downtown (which in many cities comes from a legacy of racist policy/actions, though this is rather aside from the point of them being different from what the article linked here describes about a constant outward-migration and abandonment cycle, vs a particular moment in history). In Dallas and Atlanta, those areas are largely north of downtown. In LA, they're largely west. IIRC Austin and San Antonio had hot spots in the northern parts of the city too, but I'm less up to date there.
  - ska 5y ago
    To me "expensive suburb/exurb" is really not comparable to urban density. If all you are talking about are fancy HOAs and gated communities then I think it's a different beast.

DubiousPusher 5y ago

Yes, this is different. Not because you live in California but because you live in the bay area. Urbanization has been so intense that a lot of large metro areas have avoided this fate. The land values rise so high that it becomes "worth it" to fix up the houses. The author alludes to this when talking about how some downtown lots with high enough real estate value are refurbished while those without it are dozed. But this is not the case throughout the vast spread of rural towns in America. Some are shrinking, some are stagnant and some are growing but still not sustaining land prices that unlock the capital necessary to significantly overhaul structures.

zozbot234 5y ago
High land prices don't "unlock" capital, they drain it away from productive use. All other things being equal, it would be far more preferable to have cheaper land - in fact, urban renewal often occurs in cheaper areas, with negative gentrification setting in later as land prices spike upwards due to speculation.
- majormajor 5y ago
  High land prices don't happen in a vacuum and then just magically drain productivity, they reflect demand. And demand from people with lots money generally means an area that is already currently productive - so wishing a productive area could have lower land prices is a bit of a non-starter. The limiting factor for the prices isn't policy, it's the availability of land (here Texas cities have a big advantage over coastal California ones that have to deal with mountains and oceans). DFW airport is over half the size of the whole city of SF, and larger than Manhattan. That sort of excess of availability is how you end up with cheaper land.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- DubiousPusher 5y ago
  They unlock capital for homeowners by giving them something to borrow against. In my 1980 built neighborhood there are three kinds of homeowners. 1) Low income longtime owners who can't renovate and are being replaced 2) Long time middle income residents who can't cash flow remodel but who can afford to borrow thanks to high appreciation. 3) New, affluent owners who buy houses that have been renovated or buy a house and cash flow renovation or take a massive mortgage (again largely backed by the high land value) and renovate. If your community's land prices haven't appreciated significantly then a lot of the capital you would access for refurbishment isn't available. That removes in place renovators and your community faces two fates. Slow blight as original owners exceed their most productive years or replacement as affluent buyers move in.