Real estate prices

Yes. And, that's a serious problem, especially notable by counting the numbers of homeless people living in tents, etc.

Seattle analysis is that we need 14,000 new living quarters with rents in a range that allows the homeless to enter the market. With our hugely rapid growth and skyrocketing housing prices, getting developers excited about buying land and building super low rent apartments is not easy. In fact, it may be our number one problem - even above stuff like transportation and education, depending on how one measures such things.

Today, we have people living in cars and tents, who are working full time jobs, saving up enough for a down payment or even just to pay first/last/security/utility hook ups.

 

Real estate sales are and have been declining month over month all of this year, and part of last year.Millenials by and large prefer city renting as opposed to suburban home ownership.

 

That's not true for Seattle.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SEXRNSA

 

Most millennials are probably in the first time buyers market. Being in a place like Seattle is not a friendly place for those buyers. You probably need about $25K just to make the required down payment.

 

These are people who should not be factored into the picture. They are a tiny minority, and they are choosing to live in places they can't afford.

Meantime, no developer is ever going to build 'low rent apartments'. Property development is not charity, it's business.

 

In my country (and in much of Europe and the UK etc), new houses have lower appeal and lower dollar value than old houses. The only exceptions are bespoke, high end architect designed 'concept' houses. The majority of people able to purchase property in expensive cities are seeking old homes .. the older the house, the more they'll pay.

 

I voted too high.

Average residencial property prices in the US are 10 times higher now, relative to average income, than in 1950. Innovations in construction technology combined with the staggering number of houses that currently sit empty should have driven those prices down, not up. They're being artificially inflated.

 

How can that be?

I follow several American RE companies who specialise in selling old houses, and regularly see listings for incredible old mansions going for a song. Like insanely cheap ... below $500k. And before you say 'but they're in Nowhereville", you should know that in other countries, a remote location makes almost no difference to the dollar value of such prize homes. In my country, these types of buildings are highly sought after, so when they do become available they will always cost millions, no matter WHERE they are. They can be in a ghost town, hours from the nearest city, and still sell for millions. An example of one (not far from my home) currently available on a rubbish 1 acre lot, roof leaking and parts of ornate ceilings collapsing, in a redneck outer suburb, an hour+ from the nearest city, on market for $3.5m.

 

According to Zillow, the median home price in Seattle is now $764,000, with home prices having increased just over 13% this last year.

I've paid cash for my last house and property purchases here (probably stupid!), so I don't know what mortgage companies are asking.

I do know that we have people living in cars and tents in order to save their salary toward a down payment plus costs.

Seattle led the nation in tower cranes used for construction this year - 65 cranes, 25 more than the next nearest city. The business world does NOT think this is going to slow down.

 

In many countries location is everything. I noted a lot of people in Europe bicycle to work. I also noted most of the cities were very crowded with few and expensive places for parking. I think those living in the outlying areas of most European cities would incur a great deal of expense with their commutes. Americans do not mind commuting. It is not unusual to commute 25 miles each way to work here. Of course gas I a lot cheaper here too. That makes the commute less painful. Here living close to many work areas would mean living in neighborhoods where you probably would not want to live. While Europe is changing, I don't think you have as many of those type of neighborhoods.

 

Yeah, it is becoming a lot like San Francisco and parts of New York City. Home prices are beyond the reach of most people.

 

Prices here are going up with demand.

In the period of July 2016 to July 2017 we had a growth rate second only to Atlanta among the largest 50 cities.

More recently, apartment rents have been leveling some, as production of new apartments is catching up with population increase, which is slowing from a recent record breaking high.

 

Believe me, we factor them in!! They are here. They have a significant impact.

City and county government have an effect on how many low rent apartments get built.

 

I dunno much about old mansions or other niche markets. My research only delved into nationwide averages. Middle class houses (between 100k-200k today) were 10x more affordable for americans 70 years ago.

 

Why don't we build more houses and apartments?

 

I don't know, why?

 

Possibly, most of the jobs are in the cities and there is limited space. We would build more living areas in the suburbs of the cities but that will result in longer commutes and traffic jams. Plus housing prices go up in these areas anyway. I live in the Portland area and one suburb city is Tigard and over there houses cost $400,000 on average.

My solution is to maybe have far better public transportation and biking accessibility to encourage people to not use cars as much and make it easier to get around without them.

 

A middle class house is between $100k and $200k? O.M.G

Our middle class homes, even an hour's driving time from nearest city, START at $1mil. Homes affordable for the working classes start at about $650k.

You guys have no concept of what 'expensive' is, when it comes to Real Estate, sorry.

 

They should not be factored in since they are choosing to live on the streets (rather than move). They're not genuinely seeking housing.

Who is going to pay for this 'low rent' housing which your govts impose?

 

I'm not in Europe, for the record.

But yeah, I also live in a nation in which a long commute is common. Up to 3 hours (each way) for some. It's what the impoverished must contend with, as the further you get from the cities, the cheaper the real estate. Our values are inverse to yours. The inner cities are the most expensive, and the outer suburbs the cheapest.

 

Wait... your middle class =\= your working class?

We might be experiencing a terminology differential...

Whats your national average yearly income? Ours is just under $60K.

 

.

 

Working class - or 'lower income' real estate starts at about $650k. Middle class - or 'middle income' real estate starts at $1mil. Not sure why yours is the inverse of that?

Our national average income is US$57,000, so similar. Slightly lower, obviously. BUT, our real estate is infinitely more expensive.

 

You're right. Thats rediculous. I would say ours is too high, and yours is way too high.

 

It's true that we do have some very remote towns where small houses can be bought for less than $100k, but these are many hours driving time from cities, and offer almost nothing in the way of facilities and work options. Anything within an hour of a capital city will be as per the prices given .. starting at about $600k for a run down 2 bed, 1 bath, and progressively becoming more expensive the closer you get to the city, until you get to run down, 2 bed 1 bath on microscopic plots for $2mil. If you want a fully renovated family sized home with parking and a yard, close in to a city, you're going to pay $3mil at the very least.