Million-Dollar Homes Are Taking Over These U.S. Cities At An Alarming Pace

[dktshb]

The Bay Area is beyond out of control and I count myself fortunate to have been able to get a home in LA in 2013 because I wouldn't be able to do so in 2016:

Good luck buying a starter home, or pretty much any home, in the Bay Area.
05/19/2016 06:36 pm ET

Kate Abbey-Lambertz  
National Reporter, The Huffington Post


The phrase “Million Dollar Listing” evokes ultra-wealthy house hunters, searching for lavish mansions that are out of reach for the reality show’s typical viewer. But dropping a million bucks on a home could become the new normal in a number of U.S. cities.

Real estate site Trulia released a report Thursday ranking the metro areas that have had the largest increases in the share of million-dollar homes since 2012. California communities — particularly in the Bay Area, where there’s a rapidly mounting housing crisis — dominated the list.

National Reporter, The Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0646cbeec2bc6

[ChargerCarl]

Thanks NIMBYs!

[10023]

Is it really NIMBYs, or the lack of decent mass transit infrastructure?

There are built environments which are worth preserving in their present form, and you can't take a blanket pro-development or anti-development approach. But the number one credible argument against increased density (aside from the destruction of an irreplaceable historical built environment) is that it overburdens existing infrastructure.

You can increase density in the Bay Area and LA, but they'd need real subway systems.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by 10023

Is it really NIMBYs, or the lack of decent mass transit infrastructure?

There are built environments which are worth preserving in their present form, and you can't take a blanket pro-development or anti-development approach. But the number one credible argument against increased density (aside from the destruction of an irreplaceable historical built environment) is that it overburdens existing infrastructure.

You can increase density in the Bay Area and LA, but they'd need real subway systems.

NIMBY's oppose development even along subway lines. The fact is people are generally just averse to any change in their neighborhood, which is why we shouldn't give them a say in the first place.

[10023]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

NIMBY's oppose development even along subway lines. The fact is people are generally just averse to any change in their neighborhood, which is why we shouldn't give them a say in the first place.

That doesn't say much. LA doesn't have a functional subway, so building along subway lines doesn't reduce traffic. The thing about a public transit network is you need a system that can be relied on >95% of the time for people without cars, or you have nothing. And LA is so spread out that it needs a longer network with more stations than either NYC or London.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by 10023

That doesn't say much. LA doesn't have a functional subway, so building along subway lines doesn't reduce traffic. The thing about a public transit network is you need a system that can be relied on >95% of the time for people without cars, or you have nothing. And LA is so spread out that it needs a longer network with more stations than either NYC or London.

Then we should allow more development along lines to concentrate more activity in their vicinity.

This is how Japanese cities do it:

Japan:


Europe:


USA:

[brickell]

From Miami
Number of South Florida million-dollar homes nearly doubled since 2012, report says
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/busi...e78499407.html

Those in the market for a million-dollar home are likely to find one in the Miami metro area, where the supply of luxury dwellings has nearly doubled from 3.3 percent of the real estate marketplace in 2012 to 6.3 percent in 2016. So says the online real estate company Trulia in a report released Thursday.

The Miami-Fort Laudedale rate continues to outpace the national average among the top 100 metro areas. In 2012, it was 2 percent; in 2016 it doubled to 4 percent

The report singled out La Gorce in Miami Beach — once home to rapper Lil Wayne — as the neighborhood with the highest concentration of million-dollar homes in South Florida as of this month. More than 96 percent of the homes on the mid-beach island south of Normandy Isle cost at least seven figures, a 29.5 percent increase from 2012.

[bobdreamz]

^ What is surprising is how many million dollar listings in the Miami metro are now bordering the Everglades ! If I'm going to blow a Million + for a house it has to be on the water at least.

[dave8721]

^^The craziness of the SW suburbs prices are pretty surprising as well. I grew up there in the 80's when that area (Palmetto Bay, southern Pinecrest) was staunchly middle class. Now those same homes go for a million+, at least the ones that weren't torn down in mass for larger homes. It shows what people will pay for homes in safe neighborhoods, with good schools and decent access to the Metrorail. Its tough to find East Kendall homes for under 500K any more much less anything closer to Downtown.

[ChargerCarl]

NIMBY's will latch on to any reason, no matter how ridiculous, to oppose a project:

http://evanstonnow.com/story/busines...ient-academics

[fleonzo]

Here's an exercise I've been demonstrating to folks to make them understand what's been happing in the U.S. since 1970! If you need proof- do your own research by simply googling the referenced information. I'm using 1970 as a guide line for time reference purposes but I would recommend everyone to do it based on the year you were born. What you will discover will be like Neo's experience, in the movie The Matrix, when he takes the red pill and discovers the truth of the "Real World". OK, here goes.
Do the same steps below by using the year you were born and then googling the prices for each item below in bold (i.e. divide the price of gold, in the year you were born, to the averages of household income and house prices):
1. In 1970 the annual household income in the U.S. was $9,350.
2. The average cost of a single family house was $23,400.
3. The multiple of Income to House Price = x2.5
4. The average price of Gold* in 1970 $38.90/ oz
5. The annual household earned the equivalent of 240 ounces of Gold per year
6. The Average cost of a single family house cost the equivalent of 601 ounces of Gold

Fast forward to today (2015 most recent numbers).

1. In 2015 the annual household income in the U.S. was $53,657.
2. In 2015 the average cost of a single family house was $352,700.
3. The multiple of Income to House Price = x6.5
4. The average price of Gold* in 2015 $1,250/ oz
5. The annual household earned the equivalent of 43 ounces of Gold per year
6. The Average cost of a single family house cost the equivalent of 282 ounces of Gold

What the numbers demonstrate is that the average household, in the U.S., has been losing ground in terms of purchasing power. Look up the most important monetary event that occurred on August 16, 1971 (second only to December 23, 1913) to discover the "why"!! If you take the above data you will notice that the Average Household earned the equivalent of $300,000 in today's dollars and could afford a house costing an estimated $750,000. Think long and hard about that the next time any government official (or financial expert) says that there's "No inflation"!


Note:Gold is used as a measure of the value of money (i.e. US Dollar vs Gold) and not as a form of investment.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by fleonzo

Here's an exercise I've been demonstrating to folks to make them understand what's been happing in the U.S. since 1970! If you need proof- do your own research by simply googling the referenced information. I'm using 1970 as a guide line for time reference purposes but I would recommend everyone to do it based on the year you were born. What you will discover will be like Neo's experience, in the movie The Matrix, when he takes the red pill and discovers the truth of the "Real World". OK, here goes.
Do the same steps below by using the year you were born and then googling the prices for each item below in bold (i.e. divide the price of gold, in the year you were born, to the averages of household income and house prices):
1. In 1970 the annual household income in the U.S. was $9,350.
2. The average cost of a single family house was $23,400.
3. The multiple of Income to House Price = x2.5
4. The average price of Gold* in 1970 $38.90/ oz
5. The annual household earned the equivalent of 240 ounces of Gold per year
6. The Average cost of a single family house cost the equivalent of 601 ounces of Gold

Fast forward to today (2015 most recent numbers).

1. In 2015 the annual household income in the U.S. was $53,657.
2. In 2015 the average cost of a single family house was $352,700.
3. The multiple of Income to House Price = x6.5
4. The average price of Gold* in 2015 $1,250/ oz
5. The annual household earned the equivalent of 43 ounces of Gold per year
6. The Average cost of a single family house cost the equivalent of 282 ounces of Gold

What the numbers demonstrate is that the average household, in the U.S., has been losing ground in terms of purchasing power. Look up the most important monetary event that occurred on August 16, 1971 (second only to December 23, 1913) to discover the "why"!! If you take the above data you will notice that the Average Household earned the equivalent of $300,000 in today's dollars and could afford a house costing an estimated $750,000. Think long and hard about that the next time any government official (or financial expert) says that there's "No inflation"!


Note:Gold is used as a measure of the value of money (i.e. US Dollar vs Gold) and not as a form of investment.

fleonzo very interesting, i love doing this, but when you do these kind of comparisons over the years you should include the inflation calculator snapshot for the baseline:

1970 = $1
2016 = $6.17
inflation rate = 516.7%

[ChargerCarl]

^lol

[mhays]

Interesting exercise but a bunch of stuff is wrong with it.

Your household incomes are medians, not averages. The latter would be higher.

Home buying isn't just about income. It's also about wealth, including existing home equity.

Interest rates are a HUGE variable. In 1970 rates were in the 8s and 9s. Assuming 8.8% vs 3.5% today, a $300,000 mortgage would be $2,350 per month vs. $1,350 per month. That means 75% more spending power today.

[Xing]

Isn't it about availability? If there is less vacant housing, and high demand, it's going to bring prices up. That activist from San Francisco that says build up, is very right.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Xing

Isn't it about availability? If there is less vacant housing, and high demand, it's going to bring prices up. That activist from San Francisco that says build up, is very right.

First SF needs to build subway lines. Lots of them. Right now San Francisco's transportation infrastructure can't handle a significant increase in population. And then yes, build bigger buildings in western part of the city, South San Francisco, and other areas where the existing housing stock and built environment isn't really worth preserving. I agree, though, with people who are against building big condo towers all over Russian Hill, etc.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by 10023

First SF needs to build subway lines. Lots of them. Right now San Francisco's transportation infrastructure can't handle a significant increase in population. And then yes, build bigger buildings in western part of the city, South San Francisco, and other areas where the existing housing stock and built environment isn't really worth preserving. I agree, though, with people who are against building big condo towers all over Russian Hill, etc.

SF doesn't need subway lines. The extreme high density neighborhoods, suitable for heavy rail, are very limited. And the other neighborhoods, excepting some of that warehouse stuff south of Market, aren't ever going to redeveloped with massive density.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Crawford

SF doesn't need subway lines. The extreme high density neighborhoods, suitable for heavy rail, are very limited. And the other neighborhoods, excepting some of that warehouse stuff south of Market, aren't ever going to redeveloped with massive density.

My point was that if they ever are to increase density (and there are calls here to do that), a high capacity, comprehensive public transit network is a prerequisite.

[Xing]

Originally Posted by 10023

My point was that if they ever are to increase density (and there are calls here to do that), a high capacity, comprehensive public transit network is a prerequisite.

Agreed.

[MolsonExport]

the gold statistics are completely irrelevant, as is the historical event of getting off the gold standard.

Housing prices in some cities are approaching stratospheric levels, but this is more a product of speculation, low interest rates, and globalization.

you can buy a house in parts of Detroit for not much more than the price of a VCR.