HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     
Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 5:24 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,182
Why city dwellers are seeking out second homes in the suburbs

Quote:
By Sara Clemence
July 18

Kylie Pak, the 42-year-old owner of real estate investing company RedBrick Properties, loves living in Richmond. She and her husband eat out at restaurants most nights, and thrive on the youthful energy around Virginia Commonwealth University.

Every other week, they escape to their second home — not at the beach or deep in the countryside, but 30 minutes away, in the bedroom community of Midlothian.

It’s an arrangement that’s allowed the blended family to have the best of both types of living, Pak says. She and her husband reside in the suburbs on the weeks they have their kids.

“Our children attend wonderful schools in the suburbs and play basketball in the cul-de-sac,” she says, “without us having to completely give up the convenience and culture of the city.”

It used to seem like an either or choice: Live in the city or decamp to the suburbs. If you chose the urban experience, you might eventually — if you could afford it — escape from the noise and crowds by buying a house at the beach or in the countryside.

But a number of city dwellers are instead seeking out second homes in the suburbs. Though nobody appears to be keeping statistics of how many people are doing it, some industry insiders say it’s increasingly common — and not just in megacities such as New York and Los Angeles, but also Chicago, Seattle and even smaller centers.

“There’s a lot of people that really like to be close to work but then come out to the burbs just to get a little bit of relaxation,” says Dawn McKenna, founder of the Dawn McKenna Group, a Chicago-area real estate agency. “Where you can inhale and exhale — but you don’t want to spend too much time because you want to get back with the action.”

Families who are straddling city and suburbs say they reap plenty of benefits. Some want an easier way to escape; others like the dual lifestyles. In suburbia, they get many of the pleasures of being in rural or resort areas — including space and fresh air — along with the resources that come with being among full-time residents. Restaurants and stores are within easy reach; kids can join weekend sports teams . . . .
https://www.washingtonpost.com/reale...=.a1f4b40920c9

In many ways, this is what I'm doing except my "suburb" is 950 miles from my city and the back/forth is more of a seasonal than a weekly thing plus the "suburb" has a better climate the half year I choose to spend there while the city has the better climate the half I spend THERE.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 5:51 PM
edale edale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 467
^ You're a walking argument for why Prop 13 needs to be repealed. Young professionals can't afford homes while aging boomers pay next to no tax on their incredibly appreciated real estate assets and purchase second properties.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 6:06 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 18,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
^ You're a walking argument for why Prop 13 needs to be repealed. Young professionals can't afford homes while aging boomers pay next to no tax on their incredibly appreciated real estate assets and purchase second properties.
My aunt lives in a coastal CA neighborhood of mostly retired cops, nurses and teachers, and the homes are all worth $3 million+ and many folks have a second home. Talk about being born at the right time and place, and buying RE at the perfect moment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 6:41 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 25,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
^ You're a walking argument for why Prop 13 needs to be repealed. Young professionals can't afford homes while aging boomers pay next to no tax on their incredibly appreciated real estate assets and purchase second properties.
Young professionals still won't be afford homes regardless of prop 13. It's not Pedestrian's or any other boomer's fault they bought in during the 70's when real estate was still reasonable. See New York...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 7:01 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,440
It wouldn't eliminate everybody's problems. But it would go a very long way for affordability for anyone buying for the first time.
__________________
"Alot" isn't a word.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 7:01 PM
edale edale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
Young professionals still won't be afford homes regardless of prop 13. It's not Pedestrian's or any other boomer's fault they bought in during the 70's when real estate was still reasonable. See New York...
It will encourage the turn over of homes. Prop 13 massively distorts the market.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 7:19 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
It will encourage the turn over of homes. Prop 13 massively distorts the market.
The houses would still be expensive. The problem with California is that they want to give everybody a 3 bedroom bungalow with a yard. They should've been building way more multi-family dwellings a long time ago.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 7:24 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 25,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
It will encourage the turn over of homes. Prop 13 massively distorts the market.
So..social engineering to force people to give up their homes by taxing them out so someone else can move in. That's pretty selfish. This isn't an Applebee's where people are done eating and hogging a table for an hour during a Friday night. These people are not going to live forever and eventually they will pass on and the homes will hit the market. Plus, I think folks like Pedestrian are in a position to where repealing prop 13 won't drive them out of their homes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 7:26 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
^ You're a walking argument for why Prop 13 needs to be repealed. Young professionals can't afford homes while aging boomers pay next to no tax on their incredibly appreciated real estate assets and purchase second properties.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/li...s/jealousy.htm
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 7:26 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,440
Wow...equal taxation would be "social engineering"?!

The current situation is social engineering.

I've owned my place for 11 years (not in CA)...the idea of asking for special treatment is absurd.
__________________
"Alot" isn't a word.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 7:33 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
So..social engineering to force people to give up their homes by taxing them out so someone else can move in. That's pretty selfish. This isn't an Applebee's where people are done eating and hogging a table for an hour during a Friday night. These people are not going to live forever and eventually they will pass on and the homes will hit the market. Plus, I think folks like Pedestrian are in a position to where repealing prop 13 won't drive them out of their homes.
I've said this before but I'll say it again: Here's how and why I bought a second home.

One fine day I wanted to go visit some friends in the suburbs so I went to my car in my building's parking garage I hadn't seen in weeks and found the battery dead for lack of being charged by driving the car. I said to myself, "Self, why do you have this thing?"

At about the same time, a friend came back from Tucson to San Francisco's drippy winter and told me how great it was being in the warm sunny desert. I decided to check it out. I went for a visit. I discovered not only was the weather great but the price of property was such that I could buy a small, quaint home with a mortgage payment of about as much as my garage payment in SF. I bought a home, drove the car to its garage, left it there and stopped paying for a space in SF--net cash flow = no change. The car was even useful in the Tucsion exurbs.

That was 18 years ago now. Prices for everything concerned have escalated--garage spaces in SF, homes in Tucson and especially homes in SF. Might not work now. I'm thinking I should blame millennials who must all be winners in their own minds.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 7:37 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Wow...equal taxation would be "social engineering"?!

The current situation is social engineering.

I've owned my place for 11 years (not in CA)...the idea of asking for special treatment is absurd.
CA is a social engineering state. Everything to do with state government is designed to encourage one behavior or another. Prop. 13 is designed to allow long-time residents whose taxes would have inflated merely because housing costs have but whose incomes may be fixed to stay in their homes and in the state. On the other hand, were it not for all the other social engineering policies, taxes wouldn't need to be so high in the first place.

It is what it is. If you are envious, move to CA and in 35 years or so of paying taxes to the state you too may be smiling. Or maybe not. Maybe by then the bill for the excessively generous pensions of state employees who keep the politicians in office may have come due.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 7:39 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 25,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Wow...equal taxation would be "social engineering"?!

The current situation is social engineering.

I've owned my place for 11 years (not in CA)...the idea of asking for special treatment is absurd.
And prop 13 has been around for 40 years and fucking with it now would cause havoc for those who bought in decades ago...which is the point. You want to uproot older home owners (many on fixed incomes) and allow young professional to move in. It's not about equal taxation. It's access to their homes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 8:15 PM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
^ You're a walking argument for why Prop 13 needs to be repealed. Young professionals can't afford homes while aging boomers pay next to no tax on their incredibly appreciated real estate assets and purchase second properties.
Most "young professionals" still can't afford shit and have crap loads of debt before even thinking about a mortgage. Taxing long term residents extreme amounts suddenly would do nothing but rip out average people and hand over a real estate feeding frenzy to the super rich, California would instantly transition into total serfdom instead of just mostly.
__________________
Spawn of questionable parentage!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 8:20 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
And prop 13 has been around for 40 years and fucking with it now would cause havoc for those who bought in decades ago...which is the point. You want to uproot older home owners (many on fixed incomes) and allow young professional to move in. It's not about equal taxation. It's access to their homes.
Although it's totally off-topic, there is a real consensus for "fucking with" Prop. 13 in one major respect and that is eliminating its effect on commercial property. Landlords of commercial property can raise rents as required to negate the effect of tax hikes and it does seem unfair to disadvantage one commercial venture vs another with higher or lower taxes. For that reason, it is highly likely that a proposal to fix this will be on the ballot in CA quite soon and will pass. Of course, that will raise the average rents on commercial space all over the state which will NOT be good but that probably won't stop the change.

In respect of owner-occupied residential property, however, no. It's probably not going to change nor should it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 9:07 PM
edale edale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
Most "young professionals" still can't afford shit and have crap loads of debt before even thinking about a mortgage. Taxing long term residents extreme amounts suddenly would do nothing but rip out average people and hand over a real estate feeding frenzy to the super rich, California would instantly transition into total serfdom instead of just mostly.
Ok, so substitute 'young families' if that makes it better. People start families much later in cities like LA and SF than they do in the Midwest and South. I'm talking about people in their mid-30s who have good careers and are still not able to purchase a house. So it's ok to deny this generation a chance at home ownership, but I'm supposed to feel for people who are sitting on multi-million dollar assets that they purchased for next to nothing in today's terms? If Prop 13 was eliminated, no doubt some people would be forced out of their homes because they wouldn't be able to afford the true tax burden they should be paying. But they could cash out and take their millions and purchase somewhere else. They could buy a block in Detroit and turn it into their own gated community. I don't feel bad for those people. I feel bad for my own generation who is being robbed a chance at home ownership and building wealth of our own.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 9:11 PM
edale edale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
I've said this before but I'll say it again: Here's how and why I bought a second home.

One fine day I wanted to go visit some friends in the suburbs so I went to my car in my building's parking garage I hadn't seen in weeks and found the battery dead for lack of being charged by driving the car. I said to myself, "Self, why do you have this thing?"

At about the same time, a friend came back from Tucson to San Francisco's drippy winter and told me how great it was being in the warm sunny desert. I decided to check it out. I went for a visit. I discovered not only was the weather great but the price of property was such that I could buy a small, quaint home with a mortgage payment of about as much as my garage payment in SF. I bought a home, drove the car to its garage, left it there and stopped paying for a space in SF--net cash flow = no change. The car was even useful in the Tucsion exurbs.

That was 18 years ago now. Prices for everything concerned have escalated--garage spaces in SF, homes in Tucson and especially homes in SF. Might not work now. I'm thinking I should blame millennials who must all be winners in their own minds.
If you can afford to own a second home, you can afford to pay the real tax burden on your property. I shouldn't have to subsidize your aspirational lifestyle.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 9:18 PM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,924
You're advocating for the idea that people should be forced out of their homes just because their property values increase and that's just absurd and totally contradictory to your wealth building ideas. Younger people will not have any better chance to build wealth, these homes will still be outrageously expensive only they'll be owned by a handful of uber rich landlord investors instead of regular people.

If you can't afford a home in your state then increase the supply or fucking move.
__________________
Spawn of questionable parentage!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 9:42 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
Ok, so substitute 'young families' if that makes it better. People start families much later in cities like LA and SF than they do in the Midwest and South. I'm talking about people in their mid-30s who have good careers and are still not able to purchase a house. So it's ok to deny this generation a chance at home ownership, but I'm supposed to feel for people who are sitting on multi-million dollar assets that they purchased for next to nothing in today's terms? If Prop 13 was eliminated, no doubt some people would be forced out of their homes because they wouldn't be able to afford the true tax burden they should be paying. But they could cash out and take their millions and purchase somewhere else. They could buy a block in Detroit and turn it into their own gated community. I don't feel bad for those people. I feel bad for my own generation who is being robbed a chance at home ownership and building wealth of our own.
OTOH, those 30-somethings could also take their talents to Detroit and afford a house with ease...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 9:42 PM
austlar1 austlar1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,705
My good friends, both middle age Gen X professionals, recently sold their two bedroom Manhattan condo and moved into a new 1 bedroom rental on the Upper West Side. They also bought a small SUV (600 bucks a month to garage in their new building) and located a weekend home in Columbia County. They found an interesting place situated on 40 wooded acres for less than the price of their old Manhattan condo. They plan to put most of their housing dollar into the weekend home, but they have not ruled out buying another apartment in Manhattan since prices there are somewhat stagnant at present. My friends are a childless gay couple with a high income, so probably their experience is not all that typical. I think it does reflect a desire that many big city dwellers have to enjoy some of the benefits of ex-urban or country living.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts

Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:07 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.