[BTinSF]

Are the "superstar cities" such as New York, LA, Chicago, San Francisco and Boston destined to be just great big Vail's--high amenity enclaves of the rich--with the middle class and the nation's productive economy having fled to places like Dallas and Houston and Charlotte? This commentator thinks so. I'm sure SSP forumers will have views on the subject.

My own view is that if you look only at the downtown areas, he may have a point, but probably not if you look at the larger metro areas of these cities. In San Francisco, for example, a lot of corporate activity has moved out to the so-called Tri-Valley area around Dublin, Pleasanton and San Ramon, but this is part of the metro Bay Area and connected to it by BART. Simlarly, the article cites Riverside as one of the new cities but I think most LA residents consider the Inland Empire as part of the LA orbit (I'm sure they'll correct me if not). And while business may have fled Manhattan to some extent, a lot of it has settled in suburban New Jersey and Connecticutt: again, commuter suburbs of NYC.

OK--your views?

February 13, 2007

The Myth of 'Superstar Cities'
By JOEL KOTKIN
February 13, 2007; Page A25

"If New York City is a business, it isn't Wal-Mart -- it isn't trying to be the lowest-priced product in the market. It's a high-end product, maybe even a luxury product. New York offers tremendous value, but only for those companies able to capitalize on it."

-- Mayor Michael Bloomberg
January 2003

These seem the best of times for America's elite cities. Wall Street's 2006 megabonuses created thousands of instant millionaires, and, with their venture-fund soulmates in places like San Francisco, Boston and Greenwich, the best people are prowling for Ferraris, planes, multimillion-dollar condos, the newest $200 lunch place and the latest in high fashion. In some markets, office prices and rents are breaking all-time records.

The bluest of the blue cities can also celebrate their rise to the top of the congressional pole. Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, Finance Chairman Barney Frank of suburban Boston and Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel of Manhattan all represent something of an economic coup for the "good rich" such as dot-com billionaires, subsidized downtown real-estate developers and "enlightened" investment bankers. The new notables most likely won't find fault with their constituents' windfalls as they have with those of the oil companies, the pharmaceutical firms or Wal-Mart.

Yet these triumphs obscure the longer-term developments that continue to reshape metropolitan America. Economic and demographic trends suggest that the future of American urbanism lies not in the elite cities but in younger, more affordable and less self-regarding places.

Over the past 15 years, it has been opportunistic newcomers -- Houston, Charlotte, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Dallas, Riverside -- that have created the most new jobs and gained the most net domestic migration. In contrast there has been virtually negligible long-term net growth in jobs or positive domestic migration to places like New York, Los Angeles, Boston or the San Francisco Bay Area.

What as much as anything distinguishes elite places -- what Wharton real-estate professor Joe Gyourko calls "the superstar cities" -- are their absurdly high real-estate prices. New York, Boston, San Francisco and Los Angeles have long been more expensive than, say, Dallas, Houston or Phoenix -- but in recent years the difference in price, he calculates, has increased beyond all reason. San Francisco prices since 1950, for example, have grown at twice the national rate for the 50 largest metropolitan areas.

This is good news for those who hold property, but has been less than a blessing for those middle-class families who might want to enter these markets. In some superstar cities less than 10% of households can afford a median-priced home. Nationally the average is about 50%.

Mr. Gyourko traces these surging prices to two basic causes. First, there remains in superstar cities a remarkable concentration of very high-earning families who can bid up real estate. The second factor lies with the regulatory and tax regimes, which greatly limit the production of housing and job opportunities, particularly for middle-income families, not only in the city cores but in surrounding areas.

Of course high productivity from educated workers and companies resident in these cities also contributes to the superstar phenomena. But Mr. Gyourko asserts these earning are not nearly high enough to explain the massive real-estate price differential. "You don't have to be productive to live in these places, you just have to have money," Mr. Gyourko suggests.

What drives the process is a simple combination of limited middle-class housing options combined with strong demand among the wealthy. Given the economic centrality and cultural vitality of a place like New York, there remains a sizeable top echelon, many in business, that can and does consume the Bloombergian "luxury product" as their primary or secondary residence.

The high-price trend is further exaggerated by the large concentrations of "trustafarians," or those with large amounts of inherited capital, in these areas. Many of these people have multiple residences -- in some Manhattan buildings as many of half of the owners are non-residents -- but can still drive up prices. Together with top-end business types, they can create what Mr. Gyourko describes as "the Vailization" effect: that is, turning part of the city into something akin to a high-amenity resort area, a "scarce luxury good" for a relative few and those who must remain behind to service them.

So what about the rest of the hoi polloi -- what is their urban future? For the most part, sadly, not in the "superstar" cities. Middle-class people have been fleeing the expensive cities for more affordable ones for a generation, and the migration has continued as the price differentials have grown.

Fortunately the jobs are headed in the same direction. After all, companies depend not only on elite MBAs but upon on the collective skills of middle managers, technicians and skilled laborers. Most companies also tend to be more mindful of basic costs, taxes and regulations than the average hedge-fund manager or trustafarian.

This perhaps explains why the largest companies -- with the notable exception of Silicon Valley -- have continued to move toward the more opportunistic cities. New York and its environs, for example, had 140 such firms in 1960; in 2006 the number had dropped to less than half that, some of those running with only skeleton top management. Houston, in contrast, had only one Fortune 500 company in 1960; today it is home to over 20. Houston companies tend to staff heavily locally; this is one reason the city was able to replace New York and other high-cost locales as the nation's unchallenged energy capital. Another example of this trend is Charlotte's rise as the nation's second-ranked banking center in terms of assets, surpassing San Francisco, Chicago and Los Angeles, indeed all superstar cities except New York.

The non-superstar cities have become the nation's most prodigious centers for job creation. Between 1990 and 2006, job growth in Las Vegas averaged over 6% annually; Phoenix and Riverside well over 3%; Houston, Atlanta, Dallas and Charlotte right around 2%. New York City, L.A., Boston, Chicago and San Francisco all remained well less than 1%.

Since 2000, these divergences have, if anything, actually widened. One reason is that superstar cities have continued to hemorrhage prodigious numbers of blue-collar jobs, including in fields such as manufacturing and warehousing that once sustained many urban working-class families.

To be sure, the superstar cities still likely boast far more high-six- and seven-figure incomes in finance and other business services. But in any industry this covers only a relatively small minority of workers. Overall, according to data collected by Pepperdine University's Mike Shires, the average real income -- after factoring in taxes and the cost of living -- of workers in professional business services is actually higher in places like Phoenix, Denver, Houston and Dallas than in the pricey environs of San Francisco, New York, Boston or L.A.

Some urban boosters see these shifts to the high end as evidence of superiority. After all, they argue, only the "best" remain, while immigrants, the poor and ordinary middle-income slobs migrate out to the suburbs and other less elite regions.

Yet, even here, the demographic trends are not nearly so promising. Over the past decade college-educated workers -- who once disproportionately migrated to the superstar cities -- now appear to be tilting instead to more affordable, family-friendly places. Since 2000, Riverside, Phoenix, Charlotte, Las Vegas and Dallas all have been among the big net gainers with such migrants. In contrast New York, Boston, L.A. and even the Bay Area, a big winner in the 1990s, appear to have become among the highest net losers. The big outlier here, as in many things, is Washington, D.C., where an ever expanding federal government and its satellites continue to draw in ever more educated workers.

Another intriguing shift is taking place among immigrants, the group who did much in the 1990s to help reverse demographic and economic decline in places like New York. Recent census data suggests they are increasingly likely to move to more affordable, business-friendly places such as Houston, Dallas, Charlotte and Phoenix.

These phenomena have led Andrew Beveridge, a sociologist at Queens College, to dismiss Mayor Bloomberg's much ballyhooed projections of another million New Yorkers to roughly nine million by 2025. Mr. Beveridge's numbers show that New York's briefly impressive population growth is markedly slowing. The growth in the immigrant population, he notes, appears to be dropping significantly since the late '90s.

New York has had high population expectations before -- 1940s census estimates of 8.5 million for 1970 proved a million off target. This may be the case again now, Mr. Beveridge suggests, unless the city finds ways to address the basic issues that affect the middle class -- high housing costs, taxes, regulation, schools and lack of support for diverse small businesses, particularly in the outer boroughs. How else can New York hope to create opportunities for a population already overwhelmingly minority and predominately working class?

To raise such issues amidst today's giddiness tends to reap the scorn of many big city developers and other devotees of the superstar version of urbanism. Elite city boosters like academic Richard Florida consider any return to a traditional "back to basics" agenda as reflective of "neocon anti-urbanism."

This is something of an oddity, where the fashionable "left" defines successful urbanism by its ability to lure the superaffluent, the hypereducated and the avant garde -- or what Dr. Florida calls "the greatest number of the most skilled people." One wonders what true progressives like Harry Truman or Fiorella La Guardia would think of such an approach.

La Guardia or Truman understood that great cities become so, in large part, due to the strivings of the upwardly mobile middle class and families, not the elites of any stripe. It may well be true, as Mr. Gyourko argues, that as the nation grows to 400 million or more there could be a niche for 10 to 20 such "productive resorts" serving as "enclaves of the wealthy." But the urban future -- today as in past generations -- will belong mostly to places that continue to draw and nurture the middle class, which has driven the rise of most successful capitalist cities.

The game, however, is far from over. Some larger superstar cities, like New York or L.A., may still possess enough economic and social diversity as well as the physical space to shift direction. Despite their dysfunctional political systems, radical changes in tax, regulatory and education policies, including a new emphasis on practical skills training, could restore their historic attraction to those who wish to start a small business, or maintain a middle-class family.

Such a city might not pass always Mayor Bloomberg's "luxury" calculus, but to its residents it might seem super indeed.

Mr. Kotkin, an Irvine Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation, is author of "The City: A Global History" (Modern Library, paperback 2006). He is working on a book on the American future.

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117133979256306884.html

[LMich]

He raises an intriguing point, but, at the end of the day, he's still Joel Kotkin, and that means that his anti-established city bias drips through.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

well said LMich. i just cant take him seriously.

By the way BTinSF, i think most Angelenos consider Riverside and the IE in the LA orbit, although as a very distant orbit. its not exactly LA, rather a distant cousin or something like that.

[Xelebes]

Anti-established city bias? Define that?

[DJM19]

Joel doesnt like big, old cities. He likes the champion the exurb frontier.

[Xelebes]

Oh, so pro-exurb. Is he pro-suburb?

[James Bond Agent 007]

^
Generally, yes.

[Brandon716]

I know many of you will disagree with me, and many of you will call me socialist for saying this, but the problem with western societies is the fact that capitalism has reduced living capacity in the cities for only those who can afford the insanely high real estate prices.

I'm a firm believer that we can reduce housing costs and increase housing quality without turning ourselves into the Soviet States of America.

Too bad not many agree with me, because I have little faith that we will really change much in the system as it stands today regarding affordable urban housing. The very comments I've read on this forum alone show that the people actually interested in urban development aren't even interested in bringing costs down in a realistic way. Its either we should rent our entire lives, accept living in 400 sq ft, or embrace radical capitalism and suck it up with the $1 million lofts or else. These aren't solutions or accepting the issues at hand. Its total crap in my opinion.

The only reason our suburbs and suburban cities have become hotbeds for development is the cheap housing, plain and simple.

[Alta California]

I know many of you will disagree with me, and many of you will call me socialist for saying this, but the problem with western societies is the fact that capitalism has reduced living capacity in the cities for only those who can afford the insanely high real estate prices.

I'm a firm believer that we can reduce housing costs and increase housing quality without turning ourselves into the Soviet States of America.

Too bad not many agree with me, because I have little faith that we will really change much in the system as it stands today regarding affordable urban housing. The very comments I've read on this forum alone show that the people actually interested in urban development aren't even interested in bringing costs down in a realistic way. Its either we should rent our entire lives, accept living in 400 sq ft, or embrace radical capitalism and suck it up with the $1 million lofts or else. These aren't solutions or accepting the issues at hand. Its total crap in my opinion.

The only reason our suburbs and suburban cities have become hotbeds for development is the cheap housing, plain and simple.

Capitalism does have a solution to expensive housing---MOVE. It "fixed" it before in the 90s when THAT bubble burst, it will do it again.

But I am intrigued: Tell us your socialist policy that will reduce housing costs?

[Brandon716]

Capitalism does have a solution to expensive housing---MOVE. It "fixed" it before in the 90s when THAT bubble burst, it will do it again.

But I am intrigued: Tell us your socialist policy that will reduce housing costs?

I don't have a socialist policy, I'm not socialist. I don't even know what the solution is. That's up for debate and some ideas to spring forth.

And your solution to expensive housing is exactly what I'm talking about: move to suburbia is your answer. :haha:

All I can think of is that as of late, since the 1990's, it seems some TIF financing projects and what-not have created incentives to encourage affordable housing far better than the past. While its good, its not a solution to the wealth/ghetto divide our cities have come to represent all too often.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Capitalism does have a solution to expensive housing---MOVE. It "fixed" it before in the 90s when THAT bubble burst, it will do it again.
Exactly. There are still a ton of cities in the US which have cheap housing. No socialist policy needed.

[BnaBreaker]

I know many of you will disagree with me, and many of you will call me socialist for saying this, but the problem with western societies is the fact that capitalism has reduced living capacity in the cities for only those who can afford the insanely high real estate prices.

I'm a firm believer that we can reduce housing costs and increase housing quality without turning ourselves into the Soviet States of America.

Too bad not many agree with me, because I have little faith that we will really change much in the system as it stands today regarding affordable urban housing. The very comments I've read on this forum alone show that the people actually interested in urban development aren't even interested in bringing costs down in a realistic way. Its either we should rent our entire lives, accept living in 400 sq ft, or embrace radical capitalism and suck it up with the $1 million lofts or else. These aren't solutions or accepting the issues at hand. Its total crap in my opinion.

The only reason our suburbs and suburban cities have become hotbeds for development is the cheap housing, plain and simple.

I completely agree. As much as it delights me to see people moving back to the city, I do worry that it is nothing more, for the most part, then the latest trend for the ultra-rich.

[Brandon716]

Exactly. There are still a ton of cities in the US which have cheap housing. No socialist policy needed.

Yea, your solution is exactly what the problem is: move everyone to suburban sunbelt cities where property values are low because no one was there 50 years ago.

In the year 2100 (if earth is still livable at that age), I wonder what these 150 year old suburban homes that traverse Dallas, Atlanta, and Phoenix will become like.

Will it resemble the shoddy shacks studded along the hills of Pittsburgh? The burned out towns of inner Massachusetts?

I guess we'll know when people don't have to think outside the box, but reality changes and becomes a matter of fact.

In America we have a luxury that Europeans don't have anymore: vast amounts of land undeveloped for a population that has yet to peak.

Someday we'll learn to rebuild and reuse, and make it affordable to do so.

[Alta California]

I don't have a socialist policy, I'm not socialist. I don't even know what the solution is. That's up for debate and some ideas to spring forth.

And your solution to expensive housing is exactly what I'm talking about: move to suburbia is your answer. :haha:



Moving is a very good solution. If people continue stay in inner cities for housing, it gets even MORE expensive. The movement to suburbs and to create new towns isn't even particularly capitalistic since the Soviets did that with aplomb (too bad many of them were in Siberia).

[James Bond Agent 007]

I don't have a socialist policy, I'm not socialist. I don't even know what the solution is. That's up for debate and some ideas to spring forth.

And your solution to expensive housing is exactly what I'm talking about: move to suburbia is your answer. :haha:

All I can think of is that as of late, since the 1990's, it seems some TIF financing projects and what-not have created incentives to encourage affordable housing far better than the past. While its good, its not a solution to the wealth/ghetto divide our cities have come to represent all too often.
Here's your solution:

Move to Fort Worth, where this baby will only cost you a little more than $100K. Brand new:
http://www.richmondamerican.com/ImageServer.aspx?ii=411703
More info (http://www.richmondamerican.com/Shop+and+Buy/View+Community.htm?mr=Dallas&cm=751&=ID=751&Type=Community)

Or move to Phoenix, where this baby will only cost you around $200K. Brand new:
http://www.richmondamerican.com/ImageServer.aspx?ii=424342
More info (http://www.richmondamerican.com/Shop+and+Buy/View+Community.htm?mr=Phoenix%20West%20Valley&cm=1390&=ID=1390&Type=Community)

Or move to Salt Lake, where this guy here only sets you back around $200K as well, also new.
http://www.richmondamerican.com/ImageServer.aspx?ii=417237
More info (http://www.richmondamerican.com/Shop+and+Buy/View+Community.htm?mr=Salt%20Lake%20City&cm=1063&=ID=1063&Type=Community)

And so on for a ton of other metro areas.

[Brandon716]

^Duh. Duh. And super duh.

Growing up in the Nashville area I'm used to $150k new suburban, totally non-urban, homes at 1500 sq ft.

I don't want to live in suburbia and those homes are unattractive to me. Give me an affordable 800-1000sq ft townhouse or condo in the city please.

You don't seem to understand that what you are talking about is part of what I consider the problem with housing choice, there isn't much housing choice available.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Yea, your solution is exactly what the problem is: move everyone to suburban sunbelt cities where property values are low because no one was there 50 years ago.

In the year 2100 (if earth is still livable at that age), I wonder what these 150 year old suburban homes that traverse Dallas, Atlanta, and Phoenix will become like.

Will it resemble the shoddy shacks studded along the hills of Pittsburgh? The burned out towns of inner Massachusetts?

I guess we'll know when people don't have to think outside the box, but reality changes and becomes a matter of fact.

In America we have a luxury that Europeans don't have anymore: vast amounts of land undeveloped for a population that has yet to peak.

Someday we'll learn to rebuild and reuse, and make it affordable to do so.
If the tract houses of the sunbelt someday become like the shacks studded along the hills of Pittsburgh, at least they'll be cheap. Not only that, it'll be cheap to renovate them, if anyone wants to.

Pittsburgh is another cheap city, I might add. And cheap to renovate in, if anyone wants to.

If we severaly restricted the amount of developable land like they do in Europe, even the Fort Worths and Pittsburghs of today would become expensive. Is this what we want?

I agree it would be nice if we could re-use all those burnt out houses in Pittsburgh and Buffalo, but people just don't want to move there anymore, and you can't force anyone to move there.

[Brandon716]

Oh, and as hopeless as the situation is, I'm going to be like every American and think for myself and make things work until I get what I want.

I'll be living in the city soon. I'm only 24 so its been hard enough to work myself into the position I've got at present day (the first halfway decent income I've had thus far in life) and its got transferable opportunities to various cities.

BTW, did I say people should be forced to live in Pittsburgh? Buffalo?

NO

What do my comparisons and ideas have to do with anything you said? I'm talking about how pathetic new development is regarding land use, costs, and the whole setup.

[James Bond Agent 007]

^Duh. Duh. And super duh.

Growing up in the Nashville area I'm used to $150k new suburban, totally non-urban, homes at 1500 sq ft.

I don't want to live in suburbia and those homes are unattractive to me. Give me an affordable 800-1000sq ft townhouse or condo in the city please.

You don't seem to understand that what you are talking about is part of what I consider the problem with housing choice, there isn't much housing choice available.
There are tons of inexpensive condos and townhouses in places like Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Spokane, Louisville and many other places. It just so happens that some cities like LA and NY and San Diego and Seattle are very expensive. But not all are.

We have choice up the kazoo here.

[Brandon716]

LOL. Sure.

Maybe I feel bitter because I haven't been able to get a job to afford living in the environment I prefer at this point in my life, and I'll keep trying until I get there. It shouldn't be this hard, but it is.

I don't call this easy choice.

[James Bond Agent 007]

LOL. Sure.
What is it you want?

If you want a condo in Manhattan for only $250K, I'm sorry, I can't help you.

But if you want a condo near downtown Cincinnati for $250K, I'm sure I could find you lots of great stuff.

[Brandon716]

Bond, you've already directed me towards tract homes in Fort Worth. You might as well direct me towards a bottle of cyanide with some raspberry juice on the side.

I'll take your recommendations with a grain of salt.

[Alta California]

I don't want to live in suburbia and those homes are unattractive to me. Give me an affordable 800-1000sq ft townhouse or condo in the city please.



BINGO. The problem isn't capitalism at all isn't it?

www.realtor.com. It's a first step in getting that house.

And honestly, if there is an affordable 800-1000 sq ft condo in the city, I can think of thousands of others who are poor and raising families in the city that are more deserving.

[Brandon716]

BINGO. The problem isn't capitalism at all isn't it?

www.realtor.com. It's a first step in getting that house.

And honestly, if there is an affordable 800-1000 sq ft condo in the city, I can think of thousands of others who are poor and raising families in the city that are more deserving.

You didn't even understand my original comments apparently. Heh, oh well.

I did mention TIF in here somewhere. Hello, any intelligence out there? Intelligence. Wait. AMERICA. FUCK YEA!

Oh, and in case you still can't read the original comment, lets quote.


I'm a firm believer that we can reduce housing costs and increase housing quality without turning ourselves into the Soviet States of America.

[edluva]

Exactly. There are still a ton of cities in the US which have cheap housing. No socialist policy needed.

Yup. I almost think all this "economic efficiency" talk is crap when one considers what our capitalist economy is based on. Whittle everything down and you invariably arrive at an oil-based, land-based foundation to "economic growth". You wan't to know how the US avoided becoming the relatively stagnant, highly unemployed socialist economy seen throughout much of europe? It's our infrastructure. That's our military-industrial apparatus.

How about "ultra-efficient" Japan you ask? Japan wouldn't have been without our money. Capitalism ~ Socialism ~ Communism ~ Totaliarianism. Idealism only exists to those whom it stands to benefit.

[cornholio]

Capitalism is the problem, capitalism is not perfect and that is why we do not live in a true capitalistic world...imagine what a hell hole our world would be if we did.

One easy solution, re-develop land to higher densities. Problem is that property owners have zero incentive to redevelop their land because that would result in overall lower housing prices and well less money for them. Well guess what this results in a few people lining their pockets with money while the majority suffers, at the same time those few are not benefiting society in any way what so ever(in their case capitalism is failing). To fix this would require intervention, a dose of socialism, something that is used often in our society(ex. car safety standards, etc.).

What hapens when land is expropriated for say highway development because it will benefit the majority. Why cant we just expropriate land in the heart of cities to be redevloped to higher densities, beter living standards, etc. and in turn lowering overal prices. Obviously the people whose land would be expropriated would be fairly compensated, and the redevelopment would surely pay for its self if the demand was there, which it obviously is when you get 600sqf condos for a million bucks.

Anyways theres my solution.

By the way im not neceserly advocating lowering prices to the point that everyone can live in the heart of the city, just lowering them to the point where there is a better blance, obviously in many cities right now its way out of wack and its not helping anyone except a small segment of society.

[fflint]

I don't see a problem here. I cannot afford to live in the finest neighborhood in any sizeable city--and that's because I don't have the finest income. Nobody can expect to live absolutely everywhere and anywhere--that's unrealistic. Kotkin's over-the-top ideology, a smarmy faux-populist class resentment mixed with the usual anti-liberal culture warmongering, amounts to nothing but mental masturbation for conservative ideologues who prefer their wacko ideas to the reality that some places are not affordable because the demand outstrips the supply. But then that truth isn't as fun as playing darts with liberals as the targets.

Joel Kotkin--like any conservative American culture warrior--prefers his liberals poor and powerless. They're easier to divide and conquer that way, see. But when liberals are wealthy or powerful, Kotkin attacks with his trademark sneer--out comes the "elitist" claptrap, designed to build resentment. Those awful liberals! They've got no right to the spoils of society that were long relegated only to the conservative elite!

Yep. It seems to me the vast majority of elitists in the nation--the economic, religious, and certainly political elites--live not in San Francisco or Boston, but rather, in gated suburban and exurban golf communities outside places like Dallas and Phoenix and Washington, and the other places Kotkin fetishizes on cue as the faux-populist 'future of urbanity for just plain folks.' You know, just plain folks like ivy-tower Kotkin and his walled-in upper class exurban golf buddies.

Somebody is going to live in Greenwich Village and North Beach, Santa Monica and the Gold Coast, Georgetown and the Back Bay. Not everyone--some people. Why, pray tell, shouldn't it be the ones who live there now? Kotkin's garbage is mental masturbation for Red American tribal festishists.

[Steely Dan]

^ that was beautiful flint.

as for the theme of this thread: as someone who just recently purchased my first home in chicago, i am very well aquainted with the "location, location, location" economic realities of real estate. i looked at housing types all around the city and even a few in inner ring suburbs. i eventually settled on a tiny 500 sq. ft. studio condo in the heart of downtown. i could have easily purchased a 1,000 sq. ft. 2 bedroom condo up in rogers park for the same price (hell, i saw 4 bedroom bungalows down in englewood going for $150,000! granted, englewood is a rather dicey hood), but living downtown was something i wanted so bad that i sacrificed a whole bunch of space to be able to swing it on my modest salary. i was not forced to live in a tiny studio condo, i made the choice of doing so. as has been pointed out already in this thread, not everyone should be able to live everywhere in any size housing unit they want. there are plenty of affordable ways to live in the heart of chicago if you're willing to live in a tiny space. if you're not willing to sacrifice space and you're not wealthy, well, then tough shit chief. i know it's harsh, but it's the way our world works. if you crave downtown living either get rich or live small. those are your only choices.

[slide_rule]

i had to read that kotkin article while stuck at an airport. he's lauding even more idiotic, car-dependent sprawl by playing upon resentment for the hyper-rich. he's... sophistic on so many levels, not to mention a de facto spokesman for the developers and politicos who profit from environmentally unsustainable sprawl. it's not surprising as this was published in the wall street journal, which itself has a history of ideologically justifying various causes which disproportionately benefit a small segment of the population, at the expense of everyone else.

his arguments seem to be: it's cheap, thus people move there. it sounds great, but it ignores the hidden or externalized or non-financial costs. thus phoenix's development is a better bet than the sclerotic glamor cities, even though much of its growth is based upon ruining the desert and creating long, long commutes for its residents.

no one should deny that the large coastal cities aren't perfect. but instead of stressing the need for less car-dependence, higher density, more social inclusiveness, better public transportation, etc., like most rational pundits, kotkin gives a false portrayal of development in plano or gilbert or sugarland or rancho cucamonga as the right way to go.

[Brandon716]

Capitalism is the problem, capitalism is not perfect and that is why we do not live in a true capitalistic world...imagine what a hell hole our world would be if we did.

One easy solution, re-develop land to higher densities. Problem is that property owners have zero incentive to redevelop their land because that would result in overall lower housing prices and well less money for them. Well guess what this results in a few people lining their pockets with money while the majority suffers, at the same time those few are not benefiting society in any way what so ever(in their case capitalism is failing). To fix this would require intervention, a dose of socialism, something that is used often in our society(ex. car safety standards, etc.).

What hapens when land is expropriated for say highway development because it will benefit the majority. Why cant we just expropriate land in the heart of cities to be redevloped to higher densities, beter living standards, etc. and in turn lowering overal prices. Obviously the people whose land would be expropriated would be fairly compensated, and the redevelopment would surely pay for its self if the demand was there, which it obviously is when you get 600sqf condos for a million bucks.

Anyways theres my solution.

By the way im not neceserly advocating lowering prices to the point that everyone can live in the heart of the city, just lowering them to the point where there is a better blance, obviously in many cities right now its way out of wack and its not helping anyone except a small segment of society.

Thanks for adding a little to the conversation.

I have been a fan of government incentives to developers so that they make more money doing transit friendly suburbs in addition to redevelopment in the city. I mentioned TIF financing earlier, and no one seemed to make any comments. Even though TIF programs have their own problems, they seem to make it easier to lure affordable housing for developers building new stuff.

Developers are interested in one thing: making money. They don't particularly always care if they are selling 5000 sq ft McMansions, they want to make money. The idea should be how you can make money, and keep some affordable units for the city, and make more transit friendly suburbs than we have with at least a little more walk-ability.

There are some real urban planners on here, and I'm not a planner. What programs could be created that would be far better than tax increment financing by itself for a few projects here and there?

[pricemazda]

Isn't this just a case of supply and demand. Its a basic principle of economics, if prices get too high, demand will go down as less people can afford the product.

When a product is priced too high it allows competitors to undercut that price thereby attracting customers.

[Evergrey]

If the tract houses of the sunbelt someday become like the shacks studded along the hills of Pittsburgh, at least they'll be cheap. Not only that, it'll be cheap to renovate them, if anyone wants to.

Pittsburgh is another cheap city, I might add. And cheap to renovate in, if anyone wants to.

If we severaly restricted the amount of developable land like they do in Europe, even the Fort Worths and Pittsburghs of today would become expensive. Is this what we want?



And now those shoddy shacks studding the hills of Pittsburgh are becoming quite desirable. In part, due to their rock-bottom affordability. The market demand for these houses has surpassed their prices, and now prices are escalating. "The median for new construction (in South Side Slopes neighborhood) is about $200,000, and existing stock averages $70,000, with a recent annual appreciation rate of about 5 percent."- NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/realestate/13nati.html?ex=1171602000&en=a7f5c9513c415cc7&ei=5070

Due to an improving economy and increasing awareness, cities like Pittsburgh have been seeing a recent wave of "immigrants" from high-priced markets like NYC and California. They populate the shoddy shacks and help spur the the market demand for downtown housing.

Large coastal cities like San Fran and NYC are very desirable locales and centers of high-end economies. Real estate in these cities are responding to market demand, which is extremely high. There is only so much San Fran to go around. Why has beachfront property been skyrocketing? Because there is a limited and finite amount. The demand is inelastic. Same thing with a San Fran. This is why sprawling sunbelt cities have become successful in recent years. Marginalized segments of the economy, which can't find it profitable in high-cost cities have relocated to outposts like Phoenix, Tulsa and Charlotte.

Now how do we create "affordable housing" for a broad spectrum of incomes in San Francisco without creating distortions in the market and negative externalities (i.e. rent control)? When does the system break? When can SF fail to function properly when the low-cost laborers can no longer come in from 60 miles away?

Well, one solution would be the construction of more "accessory dwelling units" (garage apartments, carriage houses, etc.). These have fallen out of favor in the US in the past 60 years, but can be very effective in providing affordable housing for low-cost laborers in desirable urban environments. And living in a mixed-income envionment is good for everyone.

[PhillyRising]

I agree it would be nice if we could re-use all those burnt out houses in Pittsburgh and Buffalo, but people just don't want to move there anymore, and you can't force anyone to move there.

.....only because IMO...the message of the last 30-35 years that moving to the Sun Belt is better than living in those towns....which I think is total bullshit. There is nothing wrong with living up there and it wouldn't take much to turn those towns around economically if the current way of thinking would just change. Let's face it...the whole country can't live down south.

Also...nobody has ever had to live in a FEMA trailer due to a snowstorm!

[PhillyRising]

I don't see a problem here. I cannot afford to live in the finest neighborhood in any sizeable city--and that's because I don't have the finest income. Nobody can expect to live absolutely everywhere and anywhere--that's unrealistic. Kotkin's over-the-top ideology, a smarmy faux-populist class resentment mixed with the usual anti-liberal culture warmongering, amounts to nothing but mental masturbation for conservative ideologues who prefer their wacko ideas to the reality that some places are not affordable because the demand outstrips the supply. But then that truth isn't as fun as playing darts with liberals as the targets.

Joel Kotkin--like any conservative American culture warrior--prefers his liberals poor and powerless. They're easier to divide and conquer that way, see. But when liberals are wealthy or powerful, Kotkin attacks with his trademark sneer--out comes the "elitist" claptrap, designed to build resentment. Those awful liberals! They've got no right to the spoils of society that were long relegated only to the conservative elite!

Yep. It seems to me the vast majority of elitists in the nation--the economic, religious, and certainly political elites--live not in San Francisco or Boston, but rather, in gated suburban and exurban golf communities outside places like Dallas and Phoenix and Washington, and the other places Kotkin fetishizes on cue as the faux-populist 'future of urbanity for just plain folks.' You know, just plain folks like ivy-tower Kotkin and his walled-in upper class exurban golf buddies.

Somebody is going to live in Greenwich Village and North Beach, Santa Monica and the Gold Coast, Georgetown and the Back Bay. Not everyone--some people. Why, pray tell, shouldn't it be the ones who live there now? Kotkin's garbage is mental masturbation for Red American tribal festishists.


Well said!

[mhays]

Its either we should rent our entire lives, accept living in 400 sq ft, or embrace radical capitalism and suck it up with the $1 million lofts or else.

I assume you're exaggerating intentionally. Regardless...

In Seattle, which is considered moderately expensive, you can get your 800 sf brand-new condo in a prosperous walkable neighborhood near Downtown for $400,000. If that's too much, you can find 800 sf units in older buildings in the same neighborhoods for $300,000 or $350,000. You could easily qualify for a $270,000 loan with a $50,000 income assuming you don't have debt, kids, or car, and have a good credit history. I'm not suggesting that everyone fits those parameters, but $50k is below the median household income around here. Below that, you can find a lovely (sarcasm) 600 sf unit from 1965 in a good walkable neighborhood like Ballard, Greenwood, or Admiral for $230,000. Lower still, you can share.

I'm a fan of how Seattle is addressing affordability. Three major components:

1. Subsidies at the low end. Seattle voters keep renewing our housing levy, which currently raises $16,000,000/year. Some of this goes to rebuilding old public housing in denser mixed-use formats aided by federal Hope VI funds. Much of it goes to a series of non-profits that do an outstanding job building and owning housing targeted to various groups, targeted to low-income families, retirees, single homeless, etc. They've built and own thousands of units which are generally positive for their neighborhoods. Groups include Low Income Housing Institute, Housing Resources Group, Plymouth Housing Group, Capitol Hill Housing, etc. They also love donations (!).

2. Reduced parking requirements. Downtown has never required parking. The City has also recently reduced parking requirements for new developments in several other dense neighborhoods. If you can cut from 120 spaces down to 60 spaces below-grade for your 100-unit building, you might save $2,000,000, which might be 15-20% of the total project cost. Developers are good at estimating how many residents will actually have cars, and building slightly more spaces than necessary. This is even more helpful for the low-income projects where very few people have cars -- it's easy to save 30% of total project costs.

3. Allowing plenty of new supply. Much of the problem in some cities is supply-demand imbalance. Seattle's permitting process is long, laborious, and still too uncertain, but it's a hell of a lot easier than San Francisco. Seattle also has more developable land -- houses that can be replaced by townhouses, underused properties on the edges of business districts, etc. Anyway, when supply and demand are balanced, some of the wealthier people can keep moving to newer places, and the older units will tend to move downmarket over the decades. The "luxury" unit of 1965 becomes the mid-priced or affordable unit of 2007.

I'm not an expert in construction price escalation -- just the marketing guy. But prices have certainly skyrocketed lately, in every city. So any quality building is going to be expensive. Methods like I've described can take the edge off but there's no magic solution.

[kool maudit]

Maybe I feel bitter because I haven't been able to get a job to afford living in the environment I prefer at this point in my life, and I'll keep trying until I get there. It shouldn't be this hard, but it is.





i am not trying to be a dick, but i admit i can't quite understand why you keep getting spat back out of the urban world. i mean, cities are where the jobs are, and not every neighbourhood is expensive. why do you keep ending up back in tennessee or wherever?

[Chicago3rd]

I don't understand why people who want to live in cookie cutter suburban homes can only dignify it by slapping down all the people who can afford to live in "supercities" and great neighborhoods. To me they say they are capitalist...but when capitalist are successful and buy a place at the top of the Trump tower in Chicago they make degrading remarks about those people.

Cities area starting to heal. I don't think the infrastructure and government could be built or rebuilt on the back of the poor who live there now or who would move in. So to me it is smart...get the rich back into the city so that they form a great base for tax revenue and business and start letting the economy get better for all.

The article is silly because it shows how stupid business is to fall into the cycle of cities. Those cheaper cities....they will grow, become more congested, need more infrastructure, need more and more taxes...and then they too will be big bad horrible cities. All the problems and lack of planning many of these cities are doing will come to bite their asses in the next few decades. And who will be there to catch the exodus from the mediocre cities.....well the real cities of course. The reborn cities.

[BTinSF]

The very comments I've read on this forum alone show that the people actually interested in urban development aren't even interested in bringing costs down in a realistic way. Its either we should rent our entire lives, accept living in 400 sq ft, or embrace radical capitalism and suck it up with the $1 million lofts or else.

I'd be interested in reading your views of a "realistic way". I have long been an advocate of addressing the homeless problem in San Francisco by building new SRO (single room occupancy) hotels to replace the ones torn down in the "urban renewal" spasms and/or the ones too rat infested to renovate. That could get people off the street and into something much like many of the very poor were living in before they became homeless (only newer and cleaner), but it would be something like the 400 sq ft. you won't accept.

I few years ago Mayor Newsom put on the SF ballot a proposal to sell bonds and build what was called "workforce housing" for people essential to the city but unable to live there: police, firemen, teachers, nurses etc. I voted for it but it didn't pass (the far left claimed it was a Newsom plot and the far right--both of them--claimed it was a socialist waste of tax dollars).

Those are the only 2 "realistic ways" I know of in a city with land and building costs the way they are in mine. It isn't just the developers making lots of money building buildings you know. Most construction labor here is unionized and much of it earns 6 figures as well. So nothing can be put up cheaply nor can it be sold cheaply without some kind of subsidy. My own condo, when I bought it 24 years ago, had the mortgage interest rate "bought down" from double digits using city bonds.

[BTinSF]

I mentioned TIF financing earlier, and no one seemed to make any comments. Even though TIF programs have their own problems, they seem to make it easier to lure affordable housing for developers building new stuff.

I saw your reference and held back because I don't think it'll work. Cities can't afford to use TIF willy-nilly. Their tax base is too marginal as it is. TIF essentially takes out a mortgage on the tax base. You get the money now to build but then you don't get the benefit of the taxes later--they go to paying off the loan. Too much of that and your tax income to pay for running the city is vaporized. If there's to be borrowing, I'd prefer straight up borrowing--general obligation or revenue bonds depending on the deal. At least they have a lower interest rate because of the tax-free yield.

[BTinSF]

Isn't this just a case of supply and demand. Its a basic principle of economics, if prices get too high, demand will go down as less people can afford the product.

When a product is priced too high it allows competitors to undercut that price thereby attracting customers.

When top corporate executives make hundreds of times what their workers make and top professionals make more by a factor of 10+, there exists a class which can hardly be priced out of the market. Especially in the case where some of those people want to own multiple residences, demand in the places where demand among them is highest isn't likely to go down.

It's a principle of investing that in tough times, sellers of luxury goods sometimes do the best. That's because the very rich can always afford what they want--including a home where they want to live.

In a city like San Franciso (with which I am most familiar), when a place like One Rincon Hill sells out pre-construction, it appears we are nowhere near exhausting the demand for high end space. And there's no incentive for anyone to undercut the prices as long as they can sell anything they can build as the high end.

Partly this situation is artifical. It's not that enough homes could not be built to saturate the market. It's that the politicians refuse to allow it. They don't see it that way and they have all sorts of reasons that sound convincing to enough people (land use rules, height limits, "affordability" requirements, cronyism etc), but it amounts to keeping the supply of housing well within the demand--even the demand just from the affluent--so that prices stay high.

[MayorOfChicago]

If there weren't people lining up to buy a $1,000,000 house in NYC, then they wouldn't be selling any.

This is just supply and demand. I pay $1,000 for a one bedroom in Chicago, could I get just as much for much cheaper in Phoenix or Louisville? Umm, yeah. Do I want to? Umm, no.

I picked where I wanted to live because I WANTED to live there. Many people want and love living in my neighborhood in Chicago. How do I know this? They charge a shit load for housing and it still gets snatched up right away.

Prices in these sunbelt places are cheaper because they're inhaling all the free land and putting in cookie cutter houses that are cheap to build and design. That's fine and dandy for them, but I don't want to live in the exact same house as everyone else in my subdivision, be dependant on a car and shop in big box stores. I pay more because I LOVE living in the heart of THIS city.

This author is stupid.

He's taking cities thousands of miles apart that grew up in different centuries and throwing them all in two distinct buckets. Then crying foul that some cities cost too much...

[Attrill]

This is too funny - when cities were facing a host of problems in the 70's and 80's conservatives thought they were nothing but a haven for lazy welfare cheats and criminals. Now that cities are thriving once again they're full of overeducated workers and have become too expensive and exclusive. I guess I'll have to sell my house in Chicago and move to Kenilworth or Winnetka to find reasonably priced housing among honest folk :D

This is my favorite line:
"only the "best" remain, while immigrants, the poor and ordinary middle-income slobs migrate out to the suburbs and other less elite regions."

Yep - no immigrants, poor, or middle income families in NYC, Chicago, LA, etc....

[Xelebes]

Ok, my reading analysis skills at work:

Bias located in this phrase.

The bluest of the blue cities can also celebrate their rise to the top of the congressional pole. Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, Finance Chairman Barney Frank of suburban Boston and Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel of Manhattan all represent something of an economic coup for the "good rich" such as dot-com billionaires, subsidized downtown real-estate developers and "enlightened" investment bankers. The new notables most likely won't find fault with their constituents' windfalls as they have with those of the oil companies, the pharmaceutical firms or Wal-Mart.


Do I win anything?

[fflint]

^You win a cookie. An internet cookie...

Funny how the WSJ is fond of canned-article lobbyists for the Petroleum-Suburbanization Complex, like Kotkin, and will allow his mockery and demonization of wealthy liberal elites for their supposed failure to criticize local homeowners the way, Kotkin explains to WSJ readers, they critique big oil and big pharma--but this raises a question.

Do WSJ readers get to read for themselves these supposed "liberal elitist" critiques Kotkin whines about, critiques of big oil and big pharma and Wal-Mart and exurban developers and such? Or is that kept out of the WSJ altogether and only to be alluded to, sight unseen, when it's anti-liberal smear time?

[fleonzo]

De acuerdo a estimaciones académicas y a inferencias estadísticas derivadas
de las cifras del Censo de Población de Estados Unidos, a finales de 2004 la
población mexicana que reside en el área triestatal alcanza un millón de
personas (1,000,000). Se estima que medio millón vive en la ciudad de Nueva York, 350,000 en Nueva Jersey y el resto entre la zona norte del estado de Nueva York y el estado de Connecticut.

El crecimiento de la población de origen mexicano en el área triestatal durante
los últimos diez años -en especial en la ciudad de Nueva York- se traduce en el
aumento más acelerado de mexicanos en una zona urbana en Estados Unidos.
En menos de una década, los mexicanos pasaron del lugar 18 de representación
poblacional al tercer sitio en 2002. Sólo los puertorriqueños y los dominicanos

Translatieion Summary: Bascially it says that the Mexican pop. in NYC and tri-state region is rapidly approaching 1 milion (NY/NJ/CT) making them the third largest Hispanic group after Puerto Ricans and Dominicans. Does anyone have an idea what this means in terms of driving population? I'm in the Food & Bev. business and I can attest to this growth because I've seen the increase in food dist. for this group...with my "own" eyes but if you want the source just ask me. BTW- I can AND choose to live here and I CAN afford it!

[nath05]

I side with the capitalists here, with one extra point that I feel needs to be made. The poster that said that cities need to provide for middle class and working class people has it absolutely backwards. The city shouldn't waste it's money building housing or subsidizing developers to build for the middle class.

The city needs to work to attract the middle class from the suburbs. It needs to fund its schools so that in student-teacher ratio, facilities, and curriculum they are competitive with the schools in the suburbs. It needs to maintain parks that are safe and attractive for kids (who don't have backyards) to play in. It needs to get a grip on its crime problems....not murders which are rare enough and unlikely to happen to someone not involved in crime themselves....but ordinary street crime and urinating outdoors and loitering and all those little things which horrify people with kids. It needs to allow street vendors and open air markets which allow people to buy goods for cheap.

In other words, the city needs to do the things that will make it attractive for families to want to be there. At that point, the free market will pick up the housing needs for those families.

[BTinSF]

^^^I can assure you there are more than enough middle class families who would like to live in San Francisco and places like it, but they feel that the type of housing they would require in the type of neighborhhods where they want to live are beyond their means. Do you seriously think people want to commute for 1 1/2 to 2 hours or more each way? The one valid issue you raise is the school question. In San Francisco, kids cannot depend on being able to go to a neighborhood school. They are bussed all around in an effort on the part of the very liberal school board to achieve ethnic balance. We are not talking here about just black/white balance either because the Asian population is not only the largest single ethnic community but one of the most vocal about their kids educations. Anyway, the result is that many families feel they have to leave town when the kids reach school age even thought they might not want to and even believe a city upbringing can be good for a kid (I believe that--most of the smartest kids I went to college with were products of New York City public schools).

I also agree with you that there's a chance the free market might meet the housing needs of middle class families IF the politicans would allow it too, but that would take substantial changes in height, land use, density and other policies as well as, I suspect, more tolerance toward the automobile (families tend to need cars more than singles or childless couples and present SF policy is leaning toward apartment buildings with little or no parking). But it's also true that the free market could never provide housing in the inner city that competes on a square foot basis with what is available in the burbs. Land and building costs are simply too high.

[JMancuso]

Are the "superstar cities" such as New York, LA, Chicago, San Francisco and Boston destined to be just great big Vail's--high amenity enclaves of the rich--with the middle class and the nation's productive economy having fled to places like Dallas and Houston and Charlotte?

superstar? or third world? new york is fast becoming like mexico city and moscow were the only the wealthy can function comfortably (3 dudes in a tiny flat in brooklyn is not conformable) but also struggles with widespread poverty with negligible middle class in between.

[pyropius]

So, one of the main reasons housing in NYC and SF is so expensive is because of artificial restrictions on supply. As a mental exercise, let me ask you this: what would NYC and SF look like twenty years from now if they adopted Houston's lax land-use laws? Where would the housing market stand in terms of price?

[James Bond Agent 007]

^
NYC and SF have a particular situation that Houston doesn't have (yet): A shortage of land.

In NYC and SF, the only way to increase the housing supply is to build up. Building vertical buildings is more expensive than building tract houses on raw land, so even if NYC and SF abandoned their zoning codes altogether, they would *still* be more expensive than Houston.

[fflint]

SF wouldn't and couldn't adopt a Houstonian zoning philosophy, because of local topography and infrastructure. There are huge sections of San Francisco that are simply not suited--geologically, geographically, systematically--to tall buildings.

We have subway stations around which the highest densities are suitable; surface light rail lines around which high densities are suitable; electric and diesel bus lines around which moderate densities are suitable; flatter, newer neighborhoods unfortunately geared more toward automobiles and thus best suited to lower densities until the transit infrastructure is significantly upgraded; and residential enclaves clinging to the sides of steep slopes that are suited best for lower density development.

Of course, like New York, all of that was figured out long ago, as any survey of either city from above will reveal. If San Francisco allowed some limited dense new development to take place where dense older developments stand--most every neighborhood has some lone and beautiful Art Deco or Beaux Arts mid-rise--we could grow organically without significantly altering the character of the city as a whole. Where there is one or two Art Deco beauties, let there be one or two similarly-dense new towers as well, with a keen eye on preserving any truly remarkable lower-rise structures, of course. It's a workable solution.

[LMich]

I don't get this new ideology that "older cities would be just fine if they made themselves into sunbelt sprawlers." Cities like San Francisco don't want, nor do they need, to emulate Houston and the like, and particularly those aspects of the sunbelt sprawlers that call for the unsustainable 'growth' these type of cities are seeing.

[fflint]

I think Houston is alright. But I don't live in San Francisco because I want a Houston experience. I like walking everywhere, I like hills, I like streetwalls, I like trains that go 80mph and take me to dense, walkable districts on the other side of the metropolitan area--and then take me right back that same night to within a couple blocks of my home.

[Xing]

I know many of you will disagree with me, and many of you will call me socialist for saying this, but the problem with western societies is the fact that capitalism has reduced living capacity in the cities for only those who can afford the insanely high real estate prices.

I'm a firm believer that we can reduce housing costs and increase housing quality without turning ourselves into the Soviet States of America.

Too bad not many agree with me, because I have little faith that we will really change much in the system as it stands today regarding affordable urban housing. The very comments I've read on this forum alone show that the people actually interested in urban development aren't even interested in bringing costs down in a realistic way. Its either we should rent our entire lives, accept living in 400 sq ft, or embrace radical capitalism and suck it up with the $1 million lofts or else. These aren't solutions or accepting the issues at hand. Its total crap in my opinion.

The only reason our suburbs and suburban cities have become hotbeds for development is the cheap housing, plain and simple.

nothing wrong with that...

[BTinSF]

SF wouldn't and couldn't adopt a Houstonian zoning philosophy, because of local topography and infrastructure. There are huge sections of San Francisco that are simply not suited--geologically, geographically, systematically--to tall buildings.

We have subway stations around which the highest densities are suitable; surface light rail lines around which high densities are suitable; electric and diesel bus lines around which moderate densities are suitable; flatter, newer neighborhoods unfortunately geared more toward automobiles and thus best suited to lower densities until the transit infrastructure is significantly upgraded; and residential enclaves clinging to the sides of steep slopes that are suited best for lower density development.

Of course, like New York, all of that was figured out long ago, as any survey of either city from above will reveal. If San Francisco allowed some limited dense new development to take place where dense older developments stand--most every neighborhood has some lone and beautiful Art Deco or Beaux Arts mid-rise--we could grow organically without significantly altering the character of the city as a whole. Where there is one or two Art Deco beauties, let there be one or two similarly-dense new towers as well, with a keen eye on preserving any truly remarkable lower-rise structures, of course. It's a workable solution.

I don't quite understand the first paragraph above. I certainly see why SF isn't likely to adopt Houstonian zoning (which is to say, no zoning) but I don't see why we couldn't. The fact that there are places highrises aren't suitable--at least in so far as that's based on geology or geography (not sure what "systematically" means)--just means they wouldn't likely be built there even if there was no law against it.

On the other hand, I completely agree with the third paragraph.

[BTinSF]

I think Houston is alright.

It's a traffic nightmare. Since it sits astride I-10, I have been forced to traverse it to get from Tucson to Florida a couple of times. A miserable experience. Don't know what it would be like to live there, but I suspect it wouldn't be like living in SF where the ugly traffic on I-80, 101 and rest is irrelevent because I never need to drive on them.

[Brandon716]

i am not trying to be a dick, but i admit i can't quite understand why you keep getting spat back out of the urban world. i mean, cities are where the jobs are, and not every neighbourhood is expensive. why do you keep ending up back in tennessee or wherever?

I guess I haven't found out how to find a decent job in Canada, eh?

On the contrary I find it interesting that some of you think its as easy as picking yourself up and moving.

[Wheelingman04]

^I would love to have dual citizenship. Canada is such a great country. I would love to have an apartment in Toronto and one here in Wheeling or Pittsburgh. It is probably really tough to get citizenship in Canada though. Back when I was younger and in the teaching field, I was really interested in teaching in Ontario. Now that I am out of the teaching field that isn't going to happen. But you never know what life is going to bring for the future.

[Marcu]

^I would love to have dual citizenship. Canada is such a great country. I would love to have an apartment in Toronto and one here in Wheeling or Pittsburgh. It is probably really tough to get citizenship in Canada though. Back when I was younger and in the teaching field, I was really interested in teaching in Ontario. Now that I am out of the teaching field that isn't going to happen. But you never know what life is going to bring for the future.

Eligibility for permanent residency in Canada is based on a point system. If you know English and have an education, you're pretty much there. The point calculation tables can be found on line.

Also, can everyone in this thread stop the city vs. city stuff. It's getting really annoying. And we should really start defining cities as "metro areas" like they do for say Paris. Otherwise we are really not accomplishing anything beyond a mere comparison of neighborhoods. Taking SF without accounting for the metro area and using that for comparison is the same as taking the richest neighborhood in Houston and not accouting fo the rest of Houston for comparison. Of course newer cities will have more middle class housing than older cities...because older cities are built up and the middle class housing growth is outside the municipal boundries. I'll be whilling to compare the job growth and middle class housing stock growth in suburban Lake County, Illinois (Chicago burbs) with that of any "new" city.

[pyropius]

What I meant when I brought up Houston was basically the ease with which owners and developers can tear down existing buildings and throw up new ones, often at a much higher density. In fact, I believe that Houston will go vertical much more quickly than Los Angeles, say, because Houston's land-use laws are much more flexible than those in most places. Shifts in demand to favor urban living can be much more easily accommodated in Houston, and done so at a lower cost. I didn't mean to imply that places like SF or NYC should become sprawling sunbelt cities. To the contrary, I was wondering how dense SF or NYC would become if developers were given free reign. (And though I didn't mention it earlier, consider also the removal of rent controls.) I'm not saying that this should happen, I'm just trying to establish a benchmark against which to judge these arguments about city affordability with regards to zoning. For example, would we see a stronger middle class presence in NYC if developers could cover the five boroughs in (not necessarily luxury) highrises?

The comparison I made to Houston was not the best, because currently Houston lacks the transportation infrastructure to sustain higher densities citywide. Also, giving developers free reign in NYC or SF would entail the loss of historical buildings and the character of many neighborhoods, which would be undesirable. Still, in the imaginary and unrealistic world of the free market, how much density could the market support? Many people have argued that government subsidies for highways and land-use laws in general have encouraged suburbanization. Imagine all the laws were rolled back and the subsidies repealed - where would the market take us?

[JMancuso]

.....only because IMO...the message of the last 30-35 years that moving to the Sun Belt is better than living in those towns....which I think is total bullshit.

it isn't bullshit. why do you think i had to move? because the scenery is way more beautiful here in houston?

[BTinSF]

though I didn't mention it earlier, consider also the removal of rent controls.

Rent control, in SF at least (and I think the same is true in NYC), is not much of an issue because there is both vacancy decontrol (the rent can be jacked up to whatever the landlord wants when a tenant moves out) and, more importantly, newly constructed apartments are not controlled so there is no disincentive to build. Many other things matter more like strict caps on condo conversions, height limits, assorted fees and exactions from developers, "affordability" requirements (in SF, a certain percentage of new units must be "affordable" and reserved for people of limited income--I think it's currently 12% but there's talk of raising it to as much as 25%), parking restrictions and other "conditional use" limitations and, worst of all, arbitrary interference in the development and permitting process by the Board of Supervisors.

giving developers free reign in NYC or SF would entail the loss of historical buildings and the character of many neighborhoods, which would be undesirable.

Not at all necessarily. San Francisco's planning process has pretty much identified and catalogued all the historic and other important structures. If some of the current restrictions were just removed from the other properties, it would make a huge difference in how much gets built, I'm sure. The character of some neighborhoods would change, but not necessarily for the worse. Again, using the city I know best, SF, Geary Blvd, for example, looks like one long suburban strip mall for about 4 miles from near downtown to the Pacific shore. I have little doubt that, with no controls, midrise and, perhaps, even highrise structures would be developed along it. But it's a major boulevard of a major city for gosh sakes. It SHOULD have a street wall higher than 1-3 stories as it has now. And rather than being almost purely commercial as now, the higher buildings could be mixed use with upper floors residential. Meanwhile, the surrounding residential neighborhoods are unlikely to be changed much and shouldn't be.

[Brandon716]

it isn't bullshit. why do you think i had to move? because the scenery is way more beautiful here in houston?

Jobs and the economy. :) Its the reason I've not moved yet, I've not found employment in the locations I want that can give me enough money to meet rent and stuff so far.

The ironic thing is that I'm back in my technical field (tech support/help desk) when I started a new job last November, it finally pays enough to support myself, but the locations suck. Its got transferability to SF, Chicago, Seattle but the centers are in suburban locations (Tinley Park, Woodridge, Schaumburg) and in SF its Concord and Walnut Creek not exactly in the city area.

So my first job that pays a livable amount isn't transferrable where I want, so I need to do a job search and find out how to get the right job.

If any of you have any tips on real job searching I'd love to hear. Don't give me links to careerbuilder or Robert Half International please, already been down that path. ;)

At least I know that when I can transfer in May, at least I'll be near Chicago or some place I want to be. Close but no cigar? Maybe, but then it'll be easier to find a city job I suppose.

The only thing keeping me sane right now are $120 weekend flights to Chicago. I'll need to see a psychiatrist and be put on Zoloft if flight costs go up, there is no way I could go without getting out of Nashcrap on a regular basis.

Last year I easily surpassed 50 job interviews (through hundreds of applications and submissions) between June and November. Its not like I'm not fricken TRYING to move to an urban area.

You guys are absolutely insane if you think its just "easy" to move. But I disgress, each has their own opinion. ;)

One thing I found rather humorous about the beginnings of the discussion is that when I tried to get a discussion on how to bring more affordable housing and redevelopment to cities, it became a political argument and people started throwing around speeches on their views of socialism and capitalism. All I said is that our current system is imperfect, we need to do a few things a little better, and I CLEARLY stated the last thing I want is to become the Soviet States of America.

What good that did, you can't even get a discussion started it seems on urban policy and how to rebuild and redevelop and have some affordability thrown in the mix.

I wonder why it is that we can't start getting some ideas going and discuss them regarding the topic at hand. Only a few people have even tried. I'm not interested in socializing real estate. I'm interested in how we create incentive to create affordable units along side wealthier villages and rebuilding, instead of pushing people out further and further.

Right now Chicago is the easiest urban center to live in out of our largest cities. Why is that? I don't know. I don't have a clue.

You certainly can't discuss anything without people getting bent out of shape on the history of socialism vs capitalism.

It grows old.

If some of you are willing to get beyond the old capitalism and socialism debate, I'll sum up my beliefs like this.

Is Socialism as portrayed in the Soviet Union better or worse than Capitalism as portrayed in the Western World? I say its far worse, too restrictive, and does not produce good results.

Is Capitalism perfect? No, but so far it has produced better living conditions for people as opposed to other systems that have been tried before.

Does that give human beings a reason to become lethargic, lazy, and accept the status quo?

NO

There is always room for improvement. Even within capitalism. Maybe I'm not looking for an "ism." My interests don't include the overthrow of capitalism. Maybe I'm just looking for ideas to be thrown around and hear some intelligent debate.

So far this thread has produced little of that.

Next question I have is what is there beyond TIF that can promote real estate development in urban cities where some affordable housing is built along side more expensive stuff so that more classes of people can enjoy the choice of an urban lifestyle?

What can we do to tear down and, instead of putting parking lots up, replace old crap with new urban housing?

...........


EDIT: I think I like my own quote. Its going to be the new signature for the time being. ;)

[Buckeye Native 001]

Walnut Creek isn't so bad. It could be a lot worse. :)

[fflint]

Walnut Creek is pretty bad. Smug, pretentious yuppie suburbanites with million-dollar homes and an ostentatious display of Bavarian metalwerk out front.

[BTinSF]

The ironic thing is that I'm back in my technical field (tech support/help desk) when I started a new job last November, it finally pays enough to support myself, but the locations suck. Its got transferability to SF, Chicago, Seattle but the centers are in suburban locations (Tinley Park, Woodridge, Schaumburg) and in SF its Concord and Walnut Creek not exactly in the city area.



Walnut Creek: "Not exactly in the city area" but maybe not as far as you seem to think. I've got a deal for you. You live in Rockridge (a very nice part of Oakland), see. Walnut Creek is 3 BART stations or 14 minutes ride in one direction (See http://www.bart.gov/stations/schedules/lineSchedules_ROUTE1_WD.asp ). Powell St. (near Union Square) is 7 BART stations or 23 minutes ride time in the other direction. Walk out your door and you are in the middle of Oakland.

http://www.rockridge.org/images/RCPCMAPsm.jpg

See also: http://www.rockridgeshop.com/ and http://www.rockridgemarkethall.com/

By the way, for 3 years before I retired I worked in Concord and commuted from downtown SF. That was just about an hour on BART. The only thing bad about it was that I had to be at work at 7:30 AM which meant catching a train at about 6:05--too early for me!

[plinko]

Walnut Creek is pretty bad. Smug, pretentious yuppie suburbanites with million-dollar homes and an ostentatious display of Bavarian metalwerk out front.

That's Etruscan you cultural boob! :whip:

-------------------------------------

You know, there's alot of different arguments about ways to keep the middle class and those in the civil service industries in cities and most of them have been touched on here. As someone who works within the development industry I have to say that I still have no idea what the best course of action is. Still, in the US, central cities are going to continue to get more 'childless' as schools are continually allowed to deteriorate.

In Santa Barbara where I live we have an exodus going on currently that is just a microcosm of the issues touched on here. The only unique thing about that is that Santa Barbara is a tiny city compared to those talked about in this thread (although no less desirable). This is a city that in 1990 had 10! Fortune 500 companies based here. Today there is only 1 (and I'm pretty sure they are on the way out as well).

Now one can argue that Santa Barbara is a city for rich people, but I put forth that it's also still a city, and there's still a huge need for middle and lower classes of residents to provide service jobs, tourism related jobs, and basic civil and technical services. How do you house those people if the median house price in the Santa Barbara UA is $1.2 Million? And the nearest 'affordable' cities and suburbs are at a minimum 30+ miles away?

One solution that's come up recently is an idea of corporate housing. Companies looking to stay here get in the development business. The city, completely interested in keeping these companies here, gives the companies development density increases and tax breaks in order to build a certain amount of workforce housing. The companies still make some money by a certain number of the units being 'market rate' (which in this town means an 800 SF condo that lists for $1Million). It's a really interesting idea to me and its currently being put into practice with our hospital. Santa Barbara has but one major hospital after the closing of a 2nd private hospital in 2002. The company that owns the remaining hospital is using the old hospital campus to build housing for nurses, medical staff, janitors, etc who normally can't afford to live here in town. These are medical personnel and absolutely necessary to the ongoing existence of the city. Local fire and police departments have long been doing similar things and are looking at even more types of this development.

Is this something that's unique to here or is it going on in these other 'exclusive....errr....expensive' cities as well. I'm kind of curious.

I think it's interesting that a municipality could get involved with keeping companies from fleeing...not with corporate welfare, but with a way to keep the company, the employees, and also get things developed in the city.

[b-s]

Here's your solution:

Move to Fort Worth, where this baby will only cost you a little more than $100K. Brand new:
http://www.richmondamerican.com/ImageServer.aspx?ii=411703
More info (http://www.richmondamerican.com/Shop+and+Buy/View+Community.htm?mr=Dallas&cm=751&=ID=751&Type=Community)

Or move to Phoenix, where this baby will only cost you around $200K. Brand new:
http://www.richmondamerican.com/ImageServer.aspx?ii=424342
More info (http://www.richmondamerican.com/Shop+and+Buy/View+Community.htm?mr=Phoenix%20West%20Valley&cm=1390&=ID=1390&Type=Community)

Or move to Salt Lake, where this guy here only sets you back around $200K as well, also new.
http://www.richmondamerican.com/ImageServer.aspx?ii=417237
More info (http://www.richmondamerican.com/Shop+and+Buy/View+Community.htm?mr=Salt%20Lake%20City&cm=1063&=ID=1063&Type=Community)

And so on for a ton of other metro areas.

*pin drop*

[fleonzo]

file:///c:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Fernando/My%20Documents/My%20Pictures/New%20Folder/1_0128home.jpg

[fleonzo]

http://img171.imageshack.us/my.php?image=10128homenu3.jpg

[b-s]

^ You gotta use http://imageshack.us/!

[fleonzo]

Can you post it for me...I got pissed off at it!

link:

file:///c:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Fernando/My%20Documents/My%20Pictures/New%20Folder/1_0128home.jpg

[Brandon716]

I've been to Chicago a million times, I've never been to SF at all. On a map Concord looks fairly far out. Any pics?

[b-s]

Can you post it for me...I got pissed off at it!

link:

file:///c:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Fernando/My%20Documents/My%20Pictures/New%20Folder/1_0128home.jpg

Here you go!

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/9138/10128homenu3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[fleonzo]

Thanks b-s!!!

[b-s]

np... Damn! Those are expensive!

[fleonzo]

10 priciest cities for apartment renters*

City Avg. rent Annual rent change Occupancy
New York** $2,469 NA 97.10%
San Francisco $1,947 8.8% 97.4%
Los Angeles $1,586 6.5% 97.5%
San Jose, Calif. $1,487 11.6% 98.2%
Orange County, Calif.$1,387 6.0% 96.8%
Boston $1,332 2.1% 96.7%
Oakland $1,248 5.8% 96.8%
San Diego $1,213 3.1% 97.1%
Washington, D.C. $1,205 4.5% 97.4%
Fort Lauderdale, Fla. $1,134 9.7% 97.5%

*Source: M/PF YieldStar; second-quarter snapshot
**Source: REIS Inc.

[Goody]

Here's your solution:

Move to Fort Worth, where this baby will only cost you a little more than $100K. Brand new:
http://www.richmondamerican.com/ImageServer.aspx?ii=411703
More info (http://www.richmondamerican.com/Shop+and+Buy/View+Community.htm?mr=Dallas&cm=751&=ID=751&Type=Community)

Or move to Phoenix, where this baby will only cost you around $200K. Brand new:
http://www.richmondamerican.com/ImageServer.aspx?ii=424342
More info (http://www.richmondamerican.com/Shop+and+Buy/View+Community.htm?mr=Phoenix%20West%20Valley&cm=1390&=ID=1390&Type=Community)

Or move to Salt Lake, where this guy here only sets you back around $200K as well, also new.
http://www.richmondamerican.com/ImageServer.aspx?ii=417237
More info (http://www.richmondamerican.com/Shop+and+Buy/View+Community.htm?mr=Salt%20Lake%20City&cm=1063&=ID=1063&Type=Community)

And so on for a ton of other metro areas.


fuck me, here you are looking at base line 350k for one thoses- depending on the area over a million

[b-s]

There's an old saying, "You get what you pay for."

After having lived and visited certain places, I'm happily paying what it takes to live in Chicago.

[Alta California]

Don't despair people, help is coming! Hide your affordable housing policies now cuz here comes...

http://www.t-shirthumor.com/Merchant2/graphics/fullsize/hbbl_lg2.gif

Home Prices Decline in Majority of Cities

By JAMES R. HAGERTY
February 15, 2007 11:29 p.m.; Page A2

Home prices declined from a year earlier in about half of all metropolitan areas in the fourth quarter, the National Association of Realtors reported.
It was the first time the trade group has recorded declining or unchanged prices in the majority of cities covered since it began collecting the data in 1979, a Realtors spokesman said.

On a national basis, the median home price during the quarter was $219,300, down 2.7% from a year earlier. Prices began falling in many areas last year after a boom that pushed prices up at double-digit annual rates in much of the country in the first half of this decade.
In the latest quarter, the median price declined in 73 metro areas, increased in 71 and was flat in five. The biggest decrease was in the Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice area of Florida, down 18% from a year before. Many of the biggest decliners were in Florida, where a glut of new condominiums is weighing on the market, and in Rust Belt cities like Youngstown and Toledo, Ohio, hurt by shrinking industrial employment.
The biggest increase was in Atlantic City, N.J., up 26%. Paul Striefsky, a broker at Vanguard Property Group, which operates in the Atlantic City area, said a new wave of upscale casino-related development has brought in more buyers of both second homes and primary residences.
Older homes in Atlantic City are being replaced by much more expensive ones, skewing the price data, added Jeffrey Otteau, president of Otteau Valuation Group Inc., an appraisal firm in East Brunswick, N.J. Many in the housing industry hope prices will level off or start edging up by this year's second half. Employment remains fairly strong and mortgage rates low. "Hopefully, the fourth quarter was the bottom of this current business cycle," said David Lereah, the Realtors' chief economist.
But a glut of new homes continues to weigh on prices in many areas, and lenders are becoming more stringent in their credit standards amid a rise in late payments and defaults. Those defaults are expected to increase the supply of foreclosed homes dumped on the market. The tougher credit standards will prevent some potential buyers from obtaining loans.
Meanwhile, the National Association of Home Builders said its index for sales of new single-family homes, a measure of confidence among builders, rose to 40 in February from 35 in January. The latest reading was the highest since June.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/NA-AM121_HOUSIN_20070215195655.gif

[mhays]

The growth management cities of the northwest, Seattle, Portland, and others, kept growing their prices in 2006. I'm not suggesting that we'll keep rising, but we do seem to be showing more stability than other places. The main driving factor seems to be our moderate increases in supply coupled with lower past escalation and, in Seattle's case, a good and growing economy that's caused higher population growth.

Local naysayers like to look at San Diego. But San Diego has seen more supply growth, and their prices are way higher.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Incidentally, I love doing this in these kinds of threads. :D

Same builder, 2 different cities.

Colorado Springs (http://www.richmondamerican.com/Shop+and+Buy/Home+Detail.htm?mr=Southern%20Colorado&cm=157&li=14108)
http://www.richmondamerican.com/ImageServer.aspx?ii=225124&Width=400&Height=275
1800 square feet
4 bedrooms
2.5 baths
2-car garage
2 stories
--------------------
$213,520


Hayward, California (http://www.richmondamerican.com/Shop+and+Buy/Home+Detail.htm?mr=Bay%20Area%20and%20Central%20Valley&cm=822&li=13831) (Bay Area)
http://www.richmondamerican.com/ImageServer.aspx?ii=422108&Width=400&Height=275
1800 square feet
4 bedrooms
3 baths
2-car garage
2 stories
--------------------
$692,861

[BTinSF]

The company that owns the remaining hospital is using the old hospital campus to build housing for nurses, medical staff, janitors, etc who normally can't afford to live here in town. These are medical personnel and absolutely necessary to the ongoing existence of the city. Local fire and police departments have long been doing similar things and are looking at even more types of this development.

Is this something that's unique to here or is it going on in these other 'exclusive....errr....expensive' cities as well. I'm kind of curious.



Well, way back near the beginning of the thread I mentioned that Mayor Newsom had put a bond issue on the SF ballot to build "workforce housing" for policemen, firemen, nurses and such: http://www.sfchamber.com/workforce_housing_committee.htm . But it failed.

Money quote: "The purpose of Prop J, first and foremost, was to drive down the exorbitant price of housing. The units that would have been built under Prop J would have been affordable to a single person making a maximum of $76,000 . . . . The maximum for a two-person household was $87,000 - that could be two people making $43,500 each."

As far as I know, no companies are building housing in the city for their workers. There are so many reasons. One may be that business is so unpopular in the People's Republic of San Francisco that corporate housing might be rejected summarily. But another one is that most city businesses don't see a need to hourse their workers in the city--rather they are moving their low-wage "back office" operations out to the burbs.

Only the city really sees a need to house its middle income employees downtown because it suddenly dawned on the last 2 mayors that an earthquake that disables both major bridges and BART would isolate the city from most of its emergency workers who live outside the city.

[BTinSF]

Don't despair people, help is coming! Hide your affordable housing policies now cuz here comes...

http://www.t-shirthumor.com/Merchant2/graphics/fullsize/hbbl_lg2.gif



You're going to have to wait a long time for Mr. Housing Bubble to bring you any real help in the Bay Area:

"The median price for a Bay Area home was down 1.5 percent, slipping to $601,000 in January compared with $610,000 a year ago, according to DataQuick Information Systems."

And there's a lot of opinion that we are now pretty near the bottom. So Bay Area houses are not going to be any bargain if you wait forever. Furthermore, the recent pattern has been that the greatest declines have been in homes with the longest commutes--homes out where there's still land for more building. So I am awaiting the dissection of the metro area but if patterns hold true, houses in the city itself will not have fallen at all.

[fflint]

I've been to Chicago a million times, I've never been to SF at all. On a map Concord looks fairly far out. Any pics?
http://www.conhistsoc.org/Aerial1995_72.jpg

I've lived in the Bay Area for 27 years and, while I've traveled through there, I've never actually set foot in Concord. Not even once.

[PhillyRising]

it isn't bullshit. why do you think i had to move? because the scenery is way more beautiful here in houston?

Companies don't give those towns a chance....and at some point the cheap taxes and land in Houston is going to end...then what? They'll all move back to Buffalo and Pittsburgh???? Can you honestly say that someone living in The Woodlands having to get up early in the morning to beat the horrific traffic to commute to Downtown Houston is living a better lifestyle than someone living in the South Hills of Pittsburgh who can jump on their light rail system and commute to their job in the Golden Triangle in half the time than the person in Houston does to their job?

[Marcu]

Companies don't give those towns a chance....and at some point the cheap taxes and land in Houston is going to end...then what? They'll all move back to Buffalo and Pittsburgh???? Can you honestly say that someone living in The Woodlands having to get up early in the morning to beat the horrific traffic to commute to Downtown Houston is living a better lifestyle than someone living in the South Hills of Pittsburgh who can jump on their light rail system and commute to their job in the Golden Triangle in half the time than the person in Houston does to their job?

Actually most studies show that commute times are highest in NY, LA, SF, and Chicago. So if anything, that is a reason to move from those cities not to those cities.

[Brandon716]

Actually most studies show that commute times are highest in NY, LA, SF, and Chicago. So if anything, that is a reason to move from those cities not to those cities.

But didn't he mention Pittsburgh and Buffalo?

[JMancuso]

Companies don't give those towns a chance....and at some point the cheap taxes and land in Houston is going to end...then what? They'll all move back to Buffalo and Pittsburgh???? Can you honestly say that someone living in The Woodlands having to get up early in the morning to beat the horrific traffic to commute to Downtown Houston is living a better lifestyle than someone living in the South Hills of Pittsburgh who can jump on their light rail system and commute to their job in the Golden Triangle in half the time than the person in Houston does to their job?

i honestly don't know the whole reason why companies packed up and left town but i do know that new york state is notorious for taxes and red tape not too mention its unwillingness to be flexible. i don't know how PA operates but am assuming not too different from NY. i'm sure a lot of companies also left to escape strict labor laws and unions and sought a workforce willing to work for less. in the NE, it is also very easy to get on the public rolls and stay there...thus bringing up the tax burden on others.

in houston, it is the complete opposite, the city (and state) roll over for companies at the expense of pretty much everything else. it shouldn't be a surprise why businesses would relocate here. and no, the taxes aren't that cheap here; we have no state income tax so the revenue still has to come from somewhere...property taxes. people who live in the woodlands generally work in that vicinity or northern houston. some morons do make the commute though.

houston is getting more and more costly but will never get out of hand like LA or new york because frankly...it's just isn't that desirable of an area and there is plenty of room to grow.

as far as people moving back north because houston is getting expensive and congested; not really. they will just move to san antonio or san marcos. people who do move back north do so because they are homesick or simply hate it here...not for economic reasons.

also, my personal observation. buffalo and pittsburgh have deep rooted cultures and identities as well as being close knit where as newer sunbelt cities generally don't and i could see where the latter would be more attractive to transplants because of the plainness.

[Evergrey]

i honestly do not know what keeps pittsburgh afloat after the mills slut down because from what i saw...it is still vibrant and an amazingly clean and attractive city. i heart the pitt.


Health Care, Higher Education, Financial Institutions, Telecommunications, Speciality Metals, High-Tech, Bio-Tech, Energy, Engineering, Information Technology, Rail Systems, Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals, Food Processing, Retail, etc. We have a very diverse economy. Wired magazine named us one of the country's "Top 10 Tech Towns". We suffered big time when we lost 150,000 steel related jobs in the 80s... but we've more than made up for that. Our continued population decline is largely a legacy of losing a huge percentage of young adults in the 80s (and their resulting children). Pittsburgh has seen a moderate economic expansion and income growth that beats the national average. We also rank 4th for percentage of residents with a post-graduate degree (after Boston, DC, San Fran). So while people always like to lump us with Buffalo... we actually have a much different story.

[Brandon716]

I've never been a Buffalo fan, but I've always liked Pittsburgh. They are quite different to be lumped together so often.

[BTinSF]

I've lived in the Bay Area for 27 years and, while I've traveled through there, I've never actually set foot in Concord. Not even once.

There's not a lot of reason to unless you happen to work there like I did . . . or live there. There's a mall but I don't think it's anything special. I think there may be a Sam's Club but I prefer CostCo and we have one of those in the city.

Boy, is that a flattering photo you posted by the way. Here's another:

http://www.citynoise.org/upload/17977.jpg

But keep in mind, it DOES have a BART line.

[fflint]

Here's an article discussing the economic and demographic forces--for good and ill--shaping the future of one of Kotkin's favorite betes noir, the Bay Area, minus the sneers and exurban boosterism. Unsurprisingly, it's not all doom-and-gloom:

Robust economy forecast
Research group sees Bay Area growth but warns of pitfalls

Carolyn Said, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, February 16, 2007

The Bay Area economy should post strong growth over the next decade as its high-wage industries expand, according to a report to be released today.

"The central message is that we have a strong economic base and lots of potential areas for growth, but there are challenges, too," said Steven Levy, executive director of the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy, a Palo Alto research group that issued the report. "There is a lot of work to do but also a lot of opportunities."

Levy predicts the region will add about 700,000 jobs, 850,000 residents and 400,000 households from 2005 to 2015.

The nine-county Bay Area's gross regional product was $415 billion in 2005. If it were a separate country, it would have ranked 17th in the world in economic output, between the Netherlands and Switzerland.

Even with a pace of 70,000 new jobs a year, it will take Bay Area until 2010 to regain the job numbers it enjoyed in 2000 before the dot-com crash, which wiped out 400,000 jobs, the report said.

The region's main challenge is a perennial one: quality-of-life issues that could make it increasingly harder to attract a talented workforce. The biggest issue is housing.

"Our worry is housing for workers because not everybody at the high-technology firms is a $100,000-plus worker," Levy said. "We have plenty of need for housing workers across the spectrum.

"I think a housing price correction is needed and on the way," Levy said. "I'm encouraged that so many cities like San Jose and San Francisco are taking active steps to find places for higher-density housing and are welcoming it."

One trend that should help the housing crunch is the region's changing age mix.

Demographic projections show that the aging of the Baby Boomer generation means that more than half the region's population growth will be among people 55 and older. The other age group expected to see the biggest growth will be 20 to 34. Both those groups -- retirees and young adults -- tend to occupy smaller housing units in more dense urban areas, Levy said.

"I don't see the Baby Boomers staying in their four- or five-bedroom houses without kids when they're 65," he said. "I think this will create increasing demand ... for smaller units."

By contrast, over the past two decades, much of the population growth was among people in the 35-to-55 age group, who are in the prime family-raising years and want to live in single-family homes.

Levy said the Bay Area's advantage as an innovation economy should continue to fuel job growth, with new sectors such as biotechnology and clean tech taking their places alongside existing high-tech industry. At the same time, international trade, specifically with the Pacific Rim, is experiencing strong growth.

But the rising pace of productivity presents a potential snag for job growth. Companies more and more are expanding production and reaping profit without increasing payrolls.

Still, the report predicts that Bay Area jobs will grow by 19.1 percent from 2005 to 2015, outpacing the 17.3 percent growth rate for California and the 13.4 percent growth for the country.

[JMancuso]

Health Care, Higher Education, Financial Institutions, Telecommunications, Speciality Metals, High-Tech, Bio-Tech, Energy, Engineering, Information Technology, Rail Systems, Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals, Food Processing, Retail, etc. We have a very diverse economy. Wired magazine named us one of the country's "Top 10 Tech Towns". We suffered big time when we lost 150,000 steel related jobs in the 80s... but we've more than made up for that. Our continued population decline is largely a legacy of losing a huge percentage of young adults in the 80s (and their resulting children). Pittsburgh has seen a moderate economic expansion and income growth that beats the national average. We also rank 4th for percentage of residents with a post-graduate degree (after Boston, DC, San Fran). So while people always like to lump us with Buffalo... we actually have a much different story.

both cities were comparable in their heyday but that's no longer the case. pittsburgh is the ultimate poster child of picking itself up and moving on where as buffalo has stagnated and declined even further. i grew up hearing all kinds of negative shit about pittsburgh...so i envisioned it looking being like soviet era minsk with a football team. imagine my surprise during the forum meet in '05.

[LMich]

Pittsburgh has undergone a relatively smooth transition to a new type of economy, but it's one of the only metropolitan areas in the country shrinking (isn't it still shrinking/stagnated); that is a very rare and strange occurance that even Buffalo isn't experiencing.

[bnk]

Incidentally, I love doing this in these kinds of threads. :D

Same builder, 2 different cities.

Colorado Springs (http://www.richmondamerican.com/Shop+and+Buy/Home+Detail.htm?mr=Southern%20Colorado&cm=157&li=14108)
http://www.richmondamerican.com/ImageServer.aspx?ii=225124&Width=400&Height=275
1800 square feet
4 bedrooms
2.5 baths
2-car garage
2 stories
--------------------
$213,520


Hayward, California (http://www.richmondamerican.com/Shop+and+Buy/Home+Detail.htm?mr=Bay%20Area%20and%20Central%20Valley&cm=822&li=13831) (Bay Area)
http://www.richmondamerican.com/ImageServer.aspx?ii=422108&Width=400&Height=275
1800 square feet
4 bedrooms
3 baths
2-car garage
2 stories
--------------------
$692,861



Crazy as shit but o so true.

[Evergrey]

Pittsburgh has undergone a relatively smooth transition to a new type of economy, but it's one of the only metropolitan areas in the country shrinking (isn't it still shrinking/stagnated); that is a very rare and strange occurance that even Buffalo isn't experiencing.

Actually, Metropolitan Buffalo IS shrinking... I'm suprised you didn't know that. Cleveland Metro is shrinking as well... it had slow growth in the 90s... but is shrinking again according to Census Estimates... and has declined from its population high in 1960.



But anyways... the economic transition wasn't smooth in the 80s. It was a very scary time for the region. Nobody knew what the future would hold for us and it took some extraordinary work by public and private leadership to turn this sinking ship around. Detroit, for example, has suffered prolonged economic difficulties. Pittsburgh's pretty much happened in one brutal, swift blow in the 80s. In 1985, the same year Rand McNally named us America's Most Livable City, we experienced a gigantic spike in out-migration... particularly amongst young adults who had to go elsewhere since the old reliable steel jobs vanished. We lose that critical young adult population and their resulting children... which are born in Charlotte, Phoenix, etc. If the steel collapse did not happen... it's estimated we would have a metro over 3 million today. After that extreme exodus... the metro stabilized... and much to most people's suprise... we have had one of the lowest out-migration rates of any major US metro... which flies against the common perception that people are fleeing in droves. The problem is that we also have one of the lowest in-migration rates... which is even lower than our out-migration rates (having a domestic migration deficit is pretty common for major US metros though). We have also been off the radar screen for international migrants. We do, however, have the most educated population of immigrants, with at least half owning a degree. Due to our challenging economic transition, our region just does not offer the types of opportunities for low-skill laborers that other areas do. We also suffer from deaths outnumbering births... which is a legacy of the 80s steel collapse. That exodus skewed our population demographic and we ended up with a a huge percentage of seniors. There has been a massive die-off in recent years... and our population demographic has become more normal... our senior segment is shrinking and our young adult population is starting to recover from a low ebb. Allegheny County is expected to start gaining population again by 2025... perhaps the metro will start sooner.

So in essence:

Very low out-migration

BUT
Even lower in-migration
Non-existent immigration (starting to change)
Deaths outnumbering births (legacy of steel collapse)

Economy growing (10,000 net jobs last year vs. 700 net in Buffalo and net losses in Cleveland and Detroit)
Wages rising faster than national average
One of the most educated workforces (Top 10 bachelors, Top 5 post-graduate)
130,000 students at metropolitan universities and colleges



btw, this is just an example of the "economic growth despite population decline" i was talking about... not picking on Cleveland... just using an example... this is from a Cleveland business blog called Cleveland 2.0
http://homepage.mac.com/edmorrison/edpro/Resources/PCI%20Index-6%20cities4.jpg
http://www.i-open.org/cleveland2/2006/08/pittsburgh-makes-top-ten.html

This is all very off-topic... but it's been brought up... so I thought I'd offer some insight.... I'm sure the residents of Superstar Cities are getting a little tired seeing all this talk about the likes of Pittsburgh, Buffalo and Cleveland!

[Evergrey]

both cities were comparable in their heyday but that's no longer the case. pittsburgh is the ultimate poster child of picking itself up and moving on where as buffalo has stagnated and declined even further. i grew up hearing all kinds of negative shit about pittsburgh...so i envisioned it looking being like soviet era minsk with a football team. imagine my surprise during the forum meet in '05.



btw, i was going to respond to this earlier but my connection failed...

While Pittsburgh and Buffalo had similar industrial compositions in their "heydeys"... they had some key differences. Pittsburgh was a major HQ city... 3rd largest after NY and Chicago. Buffalo was always a back-office city. Pittsburgh lost a lot of its HQs, but the continued presence of several major HQs has offered stability in our economic transition. Buffalo has had few major corporations that have had a major stake in the welfare of the city. In addition, all those corporate behemoths we had endowed the city with one of the country's richest collection of cultural institutions and amenities. Pittsburgh also differs from Buffalo due to the presence of world-renowned research universities, such as Pitt and Carnegie-Mellon. SUNY Buffalo is a good school... but is not in that league... and its suburban campus is detached from the pulse of the city. Our universities were a key catalyst in our economic transition and are more important than ever as they spin-off tech companies and train the next generation of workers and leaders. Higher education itself is one of our major growth industries.

[LMich]

Thanks for the corrections, Evergrey. I really never much paid attention to the metro numbers of any of the cities you mentioned, and had no idea other's were declining in population.

[PhillyRising]

both cities were comparable in their heyday but that's no longer the case. pittsburgh is the ultimate poster child of picking itself up and moving on where as buffalo has stagnated and declined even further. i grew up hearing all kinds of negative shit about pittsburgh...so i envisioned it looking being like soviet era minsk with a football team. imagine my surprise during the forum meet in '05.


Pittsburgh is a wonderful city. It is still my second favorite city...after Philadelphia of course. If Pennsylvania ever gets it act completely together and can compete with Texas for business...look out!

I've never been to Buffalo...I have been to Houston. I think I'd still pick Buffalo sight unseen.