Live data from Hacker News

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

investors.zillowgroup.com

51–60 of 104 posts

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

#51
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.

The house is over 100 years old. The heating is through radiators. The town has a population of 12,000 people. It has high crime. It's more dangerous than Chicago. It has poorly achieving schools. It has no way access to job markets.

It's a total bargain!

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

#52
post #35
post #23

> The number of cities where a typical starter home is worth $1 million or more has nearly tripled since before the pandemic, rising from 80 in February 2020 to a record 242 today. Doubt. They don't define what constitutes a city and seem to be purposely be hiding the data. There's only a count of the cities per state with no mention their names. I followed link after link and couldn't find them and gave up. Texas su…

The median price of a house in Oak Park, Illinois --- the inner-ring suburb of Chicago in which I live --- is $700,000. This is an M-COL region.

Compared to a low cost of living region, that's a pretty high cost of living.

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

#53
post #49
post #23

> The number of cities where a typical starter home is worth $1 million or more has nearly tripled since before the pandemic, rising from 80 in February 2020 to a record 242 today. Doubt. They don't define what constitutes a city and seem to be purposely be hiding the data. There's only a count of the cities per state with no mention their names. I followed link after link and couldn't find them and gave up. Texas su…

Does the US have the same distinction we have here in Australia where there will be a small local government area in the centre of a city named that? For example, the City of Sydney LGA is only one of 33 LGAs that make up what is normally known as Sydney.

> Does the US have the same distinction we have here in Australia where there will be a small local government area in the centre of a city named that?

It varies, but mostly yes. I think they're limiting the definition of a "city" to as small as possible to inflate the prices for a scary headline. Austin is the most expensive metropolitan area in TX. Fire up zillow if you can access it, search for Austin, TX with a $600k limit and it'll automatically put the city boundary on the results. You'll find plenty of listings, over 1900 standalone homes for me as of right now. Including townhomes and condos it's over 2800.

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

#54
post #21

Remember $1M today is the same as $750K in January 2019. https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

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.

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

#55
post #29
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't going by the minima, they are taking the 33rd percentiles.

It's fear driven advertising with no meaningful information. They don't mention the cities and I wasn't able to find them. The article is chock full of links other zillow articles, their own products and 3rd party advertisers.

Ok, but your doubts were factual.

If you wanted to offer a more convincing doubt about the method, I suggest complaining about their treatment of mix shift.

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

#57
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.

No responses from op. Classic bait.

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

#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 more, because you are moving from a less desirable house to a more desirable house and there are always people with more money than you. Making it worse are the global money laundering bidders, who don't care about how much, just as long as they can quickly launder money.

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

#59
post #55
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fear driven advertising with no meaningful information. They don't mention the cities and I wasn't able to find them. The article is chock full of links other zillow articles, their own products and 3rd party advertisers.

Ok, but your doubts were factual. If you wanted to offer a more convincing doubt about the method, I suggest complaining about their treatment of mix shift.

>If you wanted to offer a more convincing doubt about the method, I suggest complaining about their treatment of mix shift.

I'm not trying to convince anyone who will agree on a data-driven premise without actually seeing the data. The article states that a record number of cities have $1m+ starter homes, but there's no easily accessible list of those cities. I couldn't find it, where did you see it? I gave up after clicking about 10 different links and only landing on another vague article or advertiser's product.

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

#60
post #10
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homeowners definitely do not believe that their home prices benefit from denser zoning. (I'm a housing activist, very close to killing off SFZ in my muni, knock wood).

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 the multitude of neighborhoods that are already like that.

Post reply on HN