Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A record 242 US cities now have starter homes that cost $1M

investors.zillowgroup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 104 posts

Re: A record 242 US cities now have starter homes that cost $1M

#61

Post by parineum »

tptacek wrote: post #39
panny wrote: post #6

You can't convince me there's a housing crisis when houses like this exist, https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/404-W-Broadway-Centralia-... Walkable. Passenger rail. Fiber internet. Affordable with a single income.

Weird how everyone isn't beelining to Centralia, Illinois to capitalize on these opportunities. It definitely isn't 50 years of continuous declining population driving these bargains. "How can there be a housing crisis when there are houses available for $1 in Pontiac, MI?"

There's a housing shortage (in places I want to live).

Re: A record 242 US cities now have starter homes that cost $1M

#62

Post by Danox »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #2

" The housing problem hasn't been solved" This assumes it is a problem that is being addressed. When housing values soar, there are people getting rich off of that. The "solution" is devaluation of people's assets, and all politics is local, and all local politics is housing values. As clearly is a supply and demand issue. Supplies clearly being artificially suppressed. Of course, the housing market merely reflects e…

All of the English speaking capitalistic countries are suffering from the same problem the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand.

Housing un affordability for the next generation coming up, starter homes in California are easily at least 500,000 the old two bedroom one car garage starter house I grew up in cost $550,000 today built in the 1925. There is no way anyone in the surrounding area for the most part make enough money to afford to buy it today.

The one thing that is going up all over the place across the country are those so-called luxury apartments which cost an arm and a leg even for a one bedroom studio, the one thing that is interesting or ironic. The only reason I can afford to buy anything is because relatively late in life bought as many shares of Apple computer as I could about 21 years ago.

Anyone coming up between 18 and 30 are in trouble unless their family is relatively well off and can help them.

Re: A record 242 US cities now have starter homes that cost $1M

#63

Post by casey2 »

Most of the cities in California[1] could fit their population into 5 buildings[2] at a cost of $1200 per person to build and $200-$600 to rent[3] if there was political will and competence. Unfortunately (or fortunately) we have none.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cities_in_Cali...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regent_International_Center

[3] https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-cn/%E6%96%B0%E4%B8%96%E7%95%8C%E...

Re: A record 242 US cities now have starter homes that cost $1M

#64

Post by tptacek »

parineum wrote: post #61
tptacek wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird how everyone isn't beelining to Centralia, Illinois to capitalize on these opportunities. It definitely isn't 50 years of continuous declining population driving these bargains. "How can there be a housing crisis when there are houses available for $1 in Pontiac, MI?"

There's a housing shortage (in places I want to live).

s/I want/anyone wants.

Re: A record 242 US cities now have starter homes that cost $1M

#65

Post by casey2 »

xnx wrote: post #54
swatcoder wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This tells you more about inflation methodology than it does home affordability.

Yes. I meant to point out that "million dollar home" has a certain psychological meaning but it's the same as what a $750K home was just 7 years ago. Mortgage payment vs. household income is probably the best way to assess affordability.

Nope you have to take property tax into account and the median is skewed due to prop 13

Re: A record 242 US cities now have starter homes that cost $1M

#66

Post by KingMachiavelli »

littlexsparkee wrote: post #4
AtlasBarfed wrote: post #2

" The housing problem hasn't been solved" This assumes it is a problem that is being addressed. When housing values soar, there are people getting rich off of that. The "solution" is devaluation of people's assets, and all politics is local, and all local politics is housing values. As clearly is a supply and demand issue. Supplies clearly being artificially suppressed. Of course, the housing market merely reflects e…

The thing is homeowners benefit from denser zoning because the potential of their land is increased even if the average unit price comes down - also the amenity value of more jobs, amusements, school funding/tax base, etc in the city should show up in the price too.

Sure but homeowners can literally have their cake and eat it too. Homeowners who like where they live and don’t want to sell are best served by scarcity.

Unfortunately that means they can play both cards, they can benefit from scarcity while pretending to be anti-gentrification. And they can claim any pro-housing group is actually “pro scary capitalist developer”.

Re: A record 242 US cities now have starter homes that cost $1M

#67

Post by schmookeeg »

casey2 wrote: post #63

Most of the cities in California[1] could fit their population into 5 buildings[2] at a cost of $1200 per person to build and $200-$600 to rent[3] if there was political will and competence. Unfortunately (or fortunately) we have none. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cities_in_Cali... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regent_International_Center [3] https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-cn/%E6%96%B0%E4%B8%96%…

"The architectural design has been called "dull,"[4] and the entire concept of the complex is frequently referred to as "dystopian."[4][7][11] Residing in a "self-sufficient living environment" can negatively affect an individual's mental health. In addition, the tightly-packed apartments can cause claustrophobia. The various amenities are restricted by the floor the residents live on, and different floors have different rent prices, which can result in socioeconomic differences between residents."

Yeahhhhhh I'll be first in line for the "does not have the will for this" queue. Yuck.

Re: A record 242 US cities now have starter homes that cost $1M

#68

Post by tptacek »

parineum wrote: post #60
bombcar wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homeowners care less about their house prices than people realize - it's just a convenient excuse. Most homeowners just don't want things to change.

It's not a convenience excuse, it's a strawman. It's easy to dismiss the strawman. It's much harder to act like the good guy when you're talking about turning a quiet neighborhood into a much denser neighborhood where the kids can't walk to school anymore because there are too many cars. I never understand why people are so eager to turn a neighborhood they don't live in into something else rather than move to any of…

Because it's not OK to take the areas of highest economic opportunity and lock them up for incumbent homeowners with exclusive zoning. I focus on the neighborhood I do in fact live in, for what it's worth.

Re: A record 242 US cities now have starter homes that cost $1M

#69

Post by [deleted] »

parineum wrote: post #61
tptacek wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird how everyone isn't beelining to Centralia, Illinois to capitalize on these opportunities. It definitely isn't 50 years of continuous declining population driving these bargains. "How can there be a housing crisis when there are houses available for $1 in Pontiac, MI?"

There's a housing shortage (in places I want to live).

[deleted]

Re: A record 242 US cities now have starter homes that cost $1M

#70

Post by ffsm8 »

thelastgallon wrote: post #58

Housing in US is one of the easiest ways to launder money: https://globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/corruption-and-money-... Housing as an investment is bad policy. If your house appreciates, it doesn't mean that you can sell it and buy another which is cheaper. All livable (and unlivable) houses have appreciated and it will cost at least that much to buy another. It is far more likely your new house will cost a lot mo…

Ever increasing home prices is essentially sociatal wealth redistribution from the young to the old, as every following generation needs to pay a larger amount to the previous owners.

No wealth is being generated (no product is being created), that's why it is - fundamentally - a redistribution

Post reply on HN