Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
How much do you/should you spend on food (US)?
Options
Replies
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »We live downstate IL mid-size community....same house in S. Cali or Seattle would be 4-5X as much.
Yeah not even an exaggeration....pretty spot on. Median price per square foot for houses:
Seattle: $506
Los Angeles: $635
Illinois: $141
Illinois x 4 = Seattle
Illinois x 5 = So Cal.
Your house would probably be ~1.2 million in Seattle. Food prices probably a little higher in Seattle as well but not nearly to that degree.
Acutely aware after family moved from St. Louis to Mission Viejo in the mid 1970s and living as a single sailor in San Diego in 1996. Food, gas, basics in general were about double the price largely due to taxes associated with the product. Economics in motion - supply and demand.
I don't want to divert too much from the thread's topic, but housing (in Seattle at least) is NOT economics in motion. It's investors having their fun. The demand for low-income housing is through the roof. Nine percent of children attending public schools do not have a roof over their heads at night. An overwhelming number of adults living without shelter are employed full time. But there are plenty of housing options for the top 20% and plenty of vacant properties too (although a lot of that is zoned for business). I'm sure we'll be like Vancouver, BC soon, with vacant overpriced properties everywhere you look.
High demand, low supply. How is this not economics? Seattle's primary issue is dealing with reality.
You can either rail against a system which you have no control over, or you can change that which you have control over. Get a group of investors together and purchase property offering low-income housing.
Eh I think you can understand that when a city (which obviously has to employ a labor force and base-level professional workers) has housing costs that vastly exceed the income of those people it creates a very awkward situation where you need people to work in the city but they can't afford to live in the city. You can't really get a house within the Seattle city limits for less than 500k now and if you get one that is 500k you are talking like a 900 sqft townhome on the outskirts.
This is precisely my point. We can sit and discuss it, but market forces being what they are those with wealth can either decide to provide necessities to maintain status quo or suffer. Until workers utilize their power there will be no change. Seattle like so many other cities needs to quickly come to terms with reality. Chicago is in the same situation, only the disparity is not as obvious. Government blames industry. Industry blames government. Both have the power to implement a solution.
No offense but I think that Vancouver and Seattle are in rather unique situations that you aren't fully grasping. The real estate economy is so "booming" or "bubbling" that it has attracted a lot of foreign investment of people buying up property not to occupy it or even to use it really but like they are valuable trading cards or something. So the market is being driven by people who aren't actually affected by the living conditions of the city itself. Sure, free market capitalism balances the whole system, but if you look locally to the actual people who live in the actual city they are getting kind of screwed by investor wars driving up prices and making housing overpriced and non-functional for the general population. When a run down 900 sq ft townhouse costs more than a typically 2 person household can afford that is sort of a problem and if the market "equalizes" by crashing that isn't good either.
My wife and I both work and are both professionals both earning more than the national average and we managed to buy a 1600 sqft home in the outskirts of Seattle 3 years ago. If we were trying today I don't think we could afford a house in Seattle at all. I don't think anything like that is happening in Chicago. Looks to me from Zillow like in Chcago can buy a 3 bed 3 bath 2000 sqft house like literally in the downtown area for under 500k. In Seattle that would be something like 2 million and you cannot buy something that size within the city limits at all for 500k.
No offence taken. I get it completely, but see the obvious outcome - the system is crashing and pitchforks are coming. Seattle and Vancouver are simply further along and have fewer mitigators than similar cities.
Seems like a tremendous opportunity for Nick Hanauer to act in the best interest of the public.
It is Seattle...no one has a pitchfork. It is going to be like guitars and rolled up yoga mats.
This would dramatically soften up ANTIFA's image.
Ugh don't get me started on those dumba$$s. We hate facism and their silencing of the opposition through threat of violence....so we are going to attempt to silence the opposition through threat of violence.2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »We live downstate IL mid-size community....same house in S. Cali or Seattle would be 4-5X as much.
Yeah not even an exaggeration....pretty spot on. Median price per square foot for houses:
Seattle: $506
Los Angeles: $635
Illinois: $141
Illinois x 4 = Seattle
Illinois x 5 = So Cal.
Your house would probably be ~1.2 million in Seattle. Food prices probably a little higher in Seattle as well but not nearly to that degree.
Acutely aware after family moved from St. Louis to Mission Viejo in the mid 1970s and living as a single sailor in San Diego in 1996. Food, gas, basics in general were about double the price largely due to taxes associated with the product. Economics in motion - supply and demand.
I don't want to divert too much from the thread's topic, but housing (in Seattle at least) is NOT economics in motion. It's investors having their fun. The demand for low-income housing is through the roof. Nine percent of children attending public schools do not have a roof over their heads at night. An overwhelming number of adults living without shelter are employed full time. But there are plenty of housing options for the top 20% and plenty of vacant properties too (although a lot of that is zoned for business). I'm sure we'll be like Vancouver, BC soon, with vacant overpriced properties everywhere you look.
High demand, low supply. How is this not economics? Seattle's primary issue is dealing with reality.
You can either rail against a system which you have no control over, or you can change that which you have control over. Get a group of investors together and purchase property offering low-income housing.
Eh I think you can understand that when a city (which obviously has to employ a labor force and base-level professional workers) has housing costs that vastly exceed the income of those people it creates a very awkward situation where you need people to work in the city but they can't afford to live in the city. You can't really get a house within the Seattle city limits for less than 500k now and if you get one that is 500k you are talking like a 900 sqft townhome on the outskirts.
This is precisely my point. We can sit and discuss it, but market forces being what they are those with wealth can either decide to provide necessities to maintain status quo or suffer. Until workers utilize their power there will be no change. Seattle like so many other cities needs to quickly come to terms with reality. Chicago is in the same situation, only the disparity is not as obvious. Government blames industry. Industry blames government. Both have the power to implement a solution.
No offense but I think that Vancouver and Seattle are in rather unique situations that you aren't fully grasping. The real estate economy is so "booming" or "bubbling" that it has attracted a lot of foreign investment of people buying up property not to occupy it or even to use it really but like they are valuable trading cards or something. So the market is being driven by people who aren't actually affected by the living conditions of the city itself. Sure, free market capitalism balances the whole system, but if you look locally to the actual people who live in the actual city they are getting kind of screwed by investor wars driving up prices and making housing overpriced and non-functional for the general population. When a run down 900 sq ft townhouse costs more than a typically 2 person household can afford that is sort of a problem and if the market "equalizes" by crashing that isn't good either.
My wife and I both work and are both professionals both earning more than the national average and we managed to buy a 1600 sqft home in the outskirts of Seattle 3 years ago. If we were trying today I don't think we could afford a house in Seattle at all. I don't think anything like that is happening in Chicago. Looks to me from Zillow like in Chcago can buy a 3 bed 3 bath 2000 sqft house like literally in the downtown area for under 500k. In Seattle that would be something like 2 million and you cannot buy something that size within the city limits at all for 500k.
It depends on the neighborhood in Chicago, and how much of a fixer-upper it is. Downtown doesn't really have houses, so I'm curious what that listing is. I would not expect to see a house near downtown for less than $500K (or near $500K), in many closer in neighborhoods a teardown would be more. (My guess is you may be talking Humboldt Park or maybe certain parts of the South Side.)
That said, the Chicago market is WAY better for buyers than Seattle and some other places, although it's still quite expensive in others. (Here's a map of price per sq ft by neighborhood, although there's quite a variety depending on different factors: https://www.trulia.com/home_prices/Illinois/Chicago-heat_map/)
I was just talking to a friend who is a real estate developer in another city about why Chicago is so comparatively cheap, and I really think a lot of it is the layout of the city. If you get priced out of the longstanding more convenient/better neighborhoods, you can move west (or northwest) within the city and find affordable housing. Now, you might be living in a place that's basically a suburb, but it's within city limits and affordable.
You see that with some of the neighborhoods now being gentrified and ones that have gentrified more recently, although there's sufficient supply now (and supply is in relative terms for here at a shortage) that there's not pressure on many other neighborhoods and there are dirt cheap neighborhoods with a lovely housing stock and pretty convenient to downtown that are currently impossible because of crime (for example, East Garfield Park).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »We live downstate IL mid-size community....same house in S. Cali or Seattle would be 4-5X as much.
Yeah not even an exaggeration....pretty spot on. Median price per square foot for houses:
Seattle: $506
Los Angeles: $635
Illinois: $141
Illinois x 4 = Seattle
Illinois x 5 = So Cal.
Your house would probably be ~1.2 million in Seattle. Food prices probably a little higher in Seattle as well but not nearly to that degree.
Acutely aware after family moved from St. Louis to Mission Viejo in the mid 1970s and living as a single sailor in San Diego in 1996. Food, gas, basics in general were about double the price largely due to taxes associated with the product. Economics in motion - supply and demand.
I don't want to divert too much from the thread's topic, but housing (in Seattle at least) is NOT economics in motion. It's investors having their fun. The demand for low-income housing is through the roof. Nine percent of children attending public schools do not have a roof over their heads at night. An overwhelming number of adults living without shelter are employed full time. But there are plenty of housing options for the top 20% and plenty of vacant properties too (although a lot of that is zoned for business). I'm sure we'll be like Vancouver, BC soon, with vacant overpriced properties everywhere you look.
High demand, low supply. How is this not economics? Seattle's primary issue is dealing with reality.
You can either rail against a system which you have no control over, or you can change that which you have control over. Get a group of investors together and purchase property offering low-income housing.
Eh I think you can understand that when a city (which obviously has to employ a labor force and base-level professional workers) has housing costs that vastly exceed the income of those people it creates a very awkward situation where you need people to work in the city but they can't afford to live in the city. You can't really get a house within the Seattle city limits for less than 500k now and if you get one that is 500k you are talking like a 900 sqft townhome on the outskirts.
This is precisely my point. We can sit and discuss it, but market forces being what they are those with wealth can either decide to provide necessities to maintain status quo or suffer. Until workers utilize their power there will be no change. Seattle like so many other cities needs to quickly come to terms with reality. Chicago is in the same situation, only the disparity is not as obvious. Government blames industry. Industry blames government. Both have the power to implement a solution.
No offense but I think that Vancouver and Seattle are in rather unique situations that you aren't fully grasping. The real estate economy is so "booming" or "bubbling" that it has attracted a lot of foreign investment of people buying up property not to occupy it or even to use it really but like they are valuable trading cards or something. So the market is being driven by people who aren't actually affected by the living conditions of the city itself. Sure, free market capitalism balances the whole system, but if you look locally to the actual people who live in the actual city they are getting kind of screwed by investor wars driving up prices and making housing overpriced and non-functional for the general population. When a run down 900 sq ft townhouse costs more than a typically 2 person household can afford that is sort of a problem and if the market "equalizes" by crashing that isn't good either.
My wife and I both work and are both professionals both earning more than the national average and we managed to buy a 1600 sqft home in the outskirts of Seattle 3 years ago. If we were trying today I don't think we could afford a house in Seattle at all. I don't think anything like that is happening in Chicago. Looks to me from Zillow like in Chcago can buy a 3 bed 3 bath 2000 sqft house like literally in the downtown area for under 500k. In Seattle that would be something like 2 million and you cannot buy something that size within the city limits at all for 500k.
It depends on the neighborhood in Chicago, and how much of a fixer-upper it is. Downtown doesn't really have houses, so I'm curious what that listing is. I would not expect to see a house near downtown for less than $500K (or near $500K), in many closer in neighborhoods a teardown would be more. (My guess is you may be talking Humboldt Park or maybe certain parts of the South Side.)
That said, the Chicago market is WAY better for buyers than Seattle and some other places, although it's still quite expensive in others. (Here's a map of price per sq ft by neighborhood, although there's quite a variety depending on different factors: https://www.trulia.com/home_prices/Illinois/Chicago-heat_map/)
I was just talking to a friend who is a real estate developer in another city about why Chicago is so comparatively cheap, and I really think a lot of it is the layout of the city. If you get priced out of the longstanding more convenient/better neighborhoods, you can move west (or northwest) within the city and find affordable housing. Now, you might be living in a place that's basically a suburb, but it's within city limits and affordable.
You see that with some of the neighborhoods now being gentrified and ones that have gentrified more recently, although there's sufficient supply now (and supply is in relative terms for here at a shortage) that there's not pressure on many other neighborhoods and there are dirt cheap neighborhoods with a lovely housing stock and pretty convenient to downtown that are currently impossible because of crime (for example, East Garfield Park).
By house I mean condo in that case. You aren't going to get a "house" in Seattle for that much either and around downtown it'll be a condo. I'm also not familiar with Chicago so I am somewhat guessing as to where the downtown area is.
Here is a 2 bd 2 b 1700 sq ft condo in downtown chicago for $575k.
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/fsba,fsbo_lt/101408913_zpid/2-_beds/1700-1900_size/pricea_sort/41.889994,-87.615817,41.872037,-87.64354_rect/14_zm/
Looked up the cheapest ~2bd 2b 1700 sq ft residence in downtown seattle I could find. Couldn't find a 2 bath so here is a 1 bath.... The cheapest.
2bed 1 bath 1723 sq ft in downtown seattle. $2,875,000
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Downtown-Seattle-WA/fsba,fsbo_lt/2089779651_zpid/271849_rid/2-_beds/1700-1900_size/pricea_sort/47.628409,-122.309804,47.59589,-122.365251_rect/13_zm/
I live on the very outskirts of Seattle in a small house. Apparently I could find a larger space in the downtown of a major metropoliton midwestern city for less money. That is pretty nuts.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »We live downstate IL mid-size community....same house in S. Cali or Seattle would be 4-5X as much.
Yeah not even an exaggeration....pretty spot on. Median price per square foot for houses:
Seattle: $506
Los Angeles: $635
Illinois: $141
Illinois x 4 = Seattle
Illinois x 5 = So Cal.
Your house would probably be ~1.2 million in Seattle. Food prices probably a little higher in Seattle as well but not nearly to that degree.
Acutely aware after family moved from St. Louis to Mission Viejo in the mid 1970s and living as a single sailor in San Diego in 1996. Food, gas, basics in general were about double the price largely due to taxes associated with the product. Economics in motion - supply and demand.
I don't want to divert too much from the thread's topic, but housing (in Seattle at least) is NOT economics in motion. It's investors having their fun. The demand for low-income housing is through the roof. Nine percent of children attending public schools do not have a roof over their heads at night. An overwhelming number of adults living without shelter are employed full time. But there are plenty of housing options for the top 20% and plenty of vacant properties too (although a lot of that is zoned for business). I'm sure we'll be like Vancouver, BC soon, with vacant overpriced properties everywhere you look.
High demand, low supply. How is this not economics? Seattle's primary issue is dealing with reality.
You can either rail against a system which you have no control over, or you can change that which you have control over. Get a group of investors together and purchase property offering low-income housing.
Eh I think you can understand that when a city (which obviously has to employ a labor force and base-level professional workers) has housing costs that vastly exceed the income of those people it creates a very awkward situation where you need people to work in the city but they can't afford to live in the city. You can't really get a house within the Seattle city limits for less than 500k now and if you get one that is 500k you are talking like a 900 sqft townhome on the outskirts.
This is precisely my point. We can sit and discuss it, but market forces being what they are those with wealth can either decide to provide necessities to maintain status quo or suffer. Until workers utilize their power there will be no change. Seattle like so many other cities needs to quickly come to terms with reality. Chicago is in the same situation, only the disparity is not as obvious. Government blames industry. Industry blames government. Both have the power to implement a solution.
No offense but I think that Vancouver and Seattle are in rather unique situations that you aren't fully grasping. The real estate economy is so "booming" or "bubbling" that it has attracted a lot of foreign investment of people buying up property not to occupy it or even to use it really but like they are valuable trading cards or something. So the market is being driven by people who aren't actually affected by the living conditions of the city itself. Sure, free market capitalism balances the whole system, but if you look locally to the actual people who live in the actual city they are getting kind of screwed by investor wars driving up prices and making housing overpriced and non-functional for the general population. When a run down 900 sq ft townhouse costs more than a typically 2 person household can afford that is sort of a problem and if the market "equalizes" by crashing that isn't good either.
My wife and I both work and are both professionals both earning more than the national average and we managed to buy a 1600 sqft home in the outskirts of Seattle 3 years ago. If we were trying today I don't think we could afford a house in Seattle at all. I don't think anything like that is happening in Chicago. Looks to me from Zillow like in Chcago can buy a 3 bed 3 bath 2000 sqft house like literally in the downtown area for under 500k. In Seattle that would be something like 2 million and you cannot buy something that size within the city limits at all for 500k.
It depends on the neighborhood in Chicago, and how much of a fixer-upper it is. Downtown doesn't really have houses, so I'm curious what that listing is. I would not expect to see a house near downtown for less than $500K (or near $500K), in many closer in neighborhoods a teardown would be more. (My guess is you may be talking Humboldt Park or maybe certain parts of the South Side.)
That said, the Chicago market is WAY better for buyers than Seattle and some other places, although it's still quite expensive in others. (Here's a map of price per sq ft by neighborhood, although there's quite a variety depending on different factors: https://www.trulia.com/home_prices/Illinois/Chicago-heat_map/)
I was just talking to a friend who is a real estate developer in another city about why Chicago is so comparatively cheap, and I really think a lot of it is the layout of the city. If you get priced out of the longstanding more convenient/better neighborhoods, you can move west (or northwest) within the city and find affordable housing. Now, you might be living in a place that's basically a suburb, but it's within city limits and affordable.
You see that with some of the neighborhoods now being gentrified and ones that have gentrified more recently, although there's sufficient supply now (and supply is in relative terms for here at a shortage) that there's not pressure on many other neighborhoods and there are dirt cheap neighborhoods with a lovely housing stock and pretty convenient to downtown that are currently impossible because of crime (for example, East Garfield Park).
By house I mean condo in that case. You aren't going to get a "house" in Seattle for that much either and around downtown it'll be a condo. I'm also not familiar with Chicago so I am somewhat guessing as to where the downtown area is.
Ah. Yes, you can easily find a 2 bd/2 bath condo in downtown (or desirable neighborhoods near downtown, living right in the Loop is possible but the options are much more limited/very specific, and not the highest priced since for many that would not be desirable compared to other neighborhoods convenient to the Loop) for less than $500K.I live on the very outskirts of Seattle in a small house. Apparently I could find a larger space in the downtown of a major metropoliton midwestern city for less money. That is pretty nuts.
It's nuts that Seattle is so expensive, yes. But if you are looking at condos you do have to factor in assessments ($834/month in that place, much more in many highrises). Not at all arguing that Seattle is not much more expensive than Chicago, as I believe it is, but I do think you aren't comparing like to like.
But in our market there is a big difference between house and condo, too, so I would not compare your house to a condo, and I'd look at distance from downtown. What's your commuting time/miles to downtown, as that would help me find some comparable neighborhoods?0 -
So here's what you get for a comparable price ($2.8m) and year (2007 for this one, 2008 for yours -- in Chicago newer is going to be more expensive for a high rise condo normally) in downtown Chicago. So is where in the building it is, of course, and outdoor space that exists, and whether the view is blocked.
Lots more space, yes. Price of $1045/sq ft vs. $1669.
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/340-E-Randolph-St-60601/unit-4903/home/26794928
Do Seattle suburbs not have affordable property? My parents used to live in a 'burb of Portland and it was not that different from here. I know Seattle is crazy, crazy expensive but don't know enough about the areas around the city.0 -
We are at about $800/month for a family of 5 including food, dog food and toiletries/paper products. Kids are 6, 4 and 1.1
-
Family of four here. Husband is a hungry mechanic with a penchant for energy drinks and snacks, and kids are 6 and 4. We hover around $650-700 a month, and that's for every lunch, dinner, and breakfast (no eating out). I coupon and plan meals around what's on sale, and it still feels like so much money.1
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »We live downstate IL mid-size community....same house in S. Cali or Seattle would be 4-5X as much.
Yeah not even an exaggeration....pretty spot on. Median price per square foot for houses:
Seattle: $506
Los Angeles: $635
Illinois: $141
Illinois x 4 = Seattle
Illinois x 5 = So Cal.
Your house would probably be ~1.2 million in Seattle. Food prices probably a little higher in Seattle as well but not nearly to that degree.
Acutely aware after family moved from St. Louis to Mission Viejo in the mid 1970s and living as a single sailor in San Diego in 1996. Food, gas, basics in general were about double the price largely due to taxes associated with the product. Economics in motion - supply and demand.
I don't want to divert too much from the thread's topic, but housing (in Seattle at least) is NOT economics in motion. It's investors having their fun. The demand for low-income housing is through the roof. Nine percent of children attending public schools do not have a roof over their heads at night. An overwhelming number of adults living without shelter are employed full time. But there are plenty of housing options for the top 20% and plenty of vacant properties too (although a lot of that is zoned for business). I'm sure we'll be like Vancouver, BC soon, with vacant overpriced properties everywhere you look.
High demand, low supply. How is this not economics? Seattle's primary issue is dealing with reality.
You can either rail against a system which you have no control over, or you can change that which you have control over. Get a group of investors together and purchase property offering low-income housing.
Eh I think you can understand that when a city (which obviously has to employ a labor force and base-level professional workers) has housing costs that vastly exceed the income of those people it creates a very awkward situation where you need people to work in the city but they can't afford to live in the city. You can't really get a house within the Seattle city limits for less than 500k now and if you get one that is 500k you are talking like a 900 sqft townhome on the outskirts.
This is precisely my point. We can sit and discuss it, but market forces being what they are those with wealth can either decide to provide necessities to maintain status quo or suffer. Until workers utilize their power there will be no change. Seattle like so many other cities needs to quickly come to terms with reality. Chicago is in the same situation, only the disparity is not as obvious. Government blames industry. Industry blames government. Both have the power to implement a solution.
No offense but I think that Vancouver and Seattle are in rather unique situations that you aren't fully grasping. The real estate economy is so "booming" or "bubbling" that it has attracted a lot of foreign investment of people buying up property not to occupy it or even to use it really but like they are valuable trading cards or something. So the market is being driven by people who aren't actually affected by the living conditions of the city itself. Sure, free market capitalism balances the whole system, but if you look locally to the actual people who live in the actual city they are getting kind of screwed by investor wars driving up prices and making housing overpriced and non-functional for the general population. When a run down 900 sq ft townhouse costs more than a typically 2 person household can afford that is sort of a problem and if the market "equalizes" by crashing that isn't good either.
My wife and I both work and are both professionals both earning more than the national average and we managed to buy a 1600 sqft home in the outskirts of Seattle 3 years ago. If we were trying today I don't think we could afford a house in Seattle at all. I don't think anything like that is happening in Chicago. Looks to me from Zillow like in Chcago can buy a 3 bed 3 bath 2000 sqft house like literally in the downtown area for under 500k. In Seattle that would be something like 2 million and you cannot buy something that size within the city limits at all for 500k.
It depends on the neighborhood in Chicago, and how much of a fixer-upper it is. Downtown doesn't really have houses, so I'm curious what that listing is. I would not expect to see a house near downtown for less than $500K (or near $500K), in many closer in neighborhoods a teardown would be more. (My guess is you may be talking Humboldt Park or maybe certain parts of the South Side.)
That said, the Chicago market is WAY better for buyers than Seattle and some other places, although it's still quite expensive in others. (Here's a map of price per sq ft by neighborhood, although there's quite a variety depending on different factors: https://www.trulia.com/home_prices/Illinois/Chicago-heat_map/)
I was just talking to a friend who is a real estate developer in another city about why Chicago is so comparatively cheap, and I really think a lot of it is the layout of the city. If you get priced out of the longstanding more convenient/better neighborhoods, you can move west (or northwest) within the city and find affordable housing. Now, you might be living in a place that's basically a suburb, but it's within city limits and affordable.
You see that with some of the neighborhoods now being gentrified and ones that have gentrified more recently, although there's sufficient supply now (and supply is in relative terms for here at a shortage) that there's not pressure on many other neighborhoods and there are dirt cheap neighborhoods with a lovely housing stock and pretty convenient to downtown that are currently impossible because of crime (for example, East Garfield Park).
By house I mean condo in that case. You aren't going to get a "house" in Seattle for that much either and around downtown it'll be a condo. I'm also not familiar with Chicago so I am somewhat guessing as to where the downtown area is.
Ah. Yes, you can easily find a 2 bd/2 bath condo in downtown (or desirable neighborhoods near downtown, living right in the Loop is possible but the options are much more limited/very specific, and not the highest priced since for many that would not be desirable compared to other neighborhoods convenient to the Loop) for less than $500K.I live on the very outskirts of Seattle in a small house. Apparently I could find a larger space in the downtown of a major metropoliton midwestern city for less money. That is pretty nuts.
It's nuts that Seattle is so expensive, yes. But if you are looking at condos you do have to factor in assessments ($834/month in that place, much more in many highrises). Not at all arguing that Seattle is not much more expensive than Chicago, as I believe it is, but I do think you aren't comparing like to like.
But in our market there is a big difference between house and condo, too, so I would not compare your house to a condo, and I'd look at distance from downtown. What's your commuting time/miles to downtown, as that would help me find some comparable neighborhoods?
Well my like to like comparison was to an equivalent sized condo in downtown Seattle that was 5x more money and I assume also had assessments or building fees. My home was just to say even living in a smaller space in the outskirts costs more but wasn't trying to say that was like to like.
Going downtown is probably about a 50 minute commute by transit and maybe 35 by car not including trying to park (I use transit and I dont go all the way downtown). I live 8 miles from downtown and probably 1/2 mile from the city limit.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »So here's what you get for a comparable price ($2.8m) and year (2007 for this one, 2008 for yours -- in Chicago newer is going to be more expensive for a high rise condo normally) in downtown Chicago. So is where in the building it is, of course, and outdoor space that exists, and whether the view is blocked.
Lots more space, yes. Price of $1045/sq ft vs. $1669.
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/340-E-Randolph-St-60601/unit-4903/home/26794928
Do Seattle suburbs not have affordable property? My parents used to live in a 'burb of Portland and it was not that different from here. I know Seattle is crazy, crazy expensive but don't know enough about the areas around the city.
Part of the issue of Seattle is it is geographically locked by the landscape by the Puget sound to the west and lake Washington and the Cascade mountains to the east. Limits how far you can go so limits how much suburbs you can have. A lot of the suburbs like Bellevue or Issaquah are equivalently priced or even more expensive...the properties and houses are just a lot larger.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »So here's what you get for a comparable price ($2.8m) and year (2007 for this one, 2008 for yours -- in Chicago newer is going to be more expensive for a high rise condo normally) in downtown Chicago. So is where in the building it is, of course, and outdoor space that exists, and whether the view is blocked.
Lots more space, yes. Price of $1045/sq ft vs. $1669.
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/340-E-Randolph-St-60601/unit-4903/home/26794928
Do Seattle suburbs not have affordable property? My parents used to live in a 'burb of Portland and it was not that different from here. I know Seattle is crazy, crazy expensive but don't know enough about the areas around the city.
Yeah but I didn't choose that condo in Seattle because of its newness or view....I chose it because it is the cheapest listing i found in downtown Seattle above 1500sqft...at 2.8 million. Yeah you can get 650 sqft studios for less than a million that is true but if you want something new with a view and 3 bedrooms you are looking at more like 9 to 12 million. It is designed to not be affordable. Living in downtown Seattle isn't meant for us...let's put it that way.
What I'd be curious about is how many people work in downtown that live in or with a mile of downtown relative to the two cities. In Seattle I'm guessing it is close to zero although there are probably some bankers or finance people that do I'm sure.
Just looking at housing in Chicago it seems to me like if you are a middle class professional you could afford a house/townhome/condo large enough for a family pretty much anywhere. Not saying you would choose a run down 1700 sqft condo in downtown over other more attractive options elsewhere...but you could. I'm just saying currently in Seattle there is an ever expanding bubble centered on downtown that prices out the vast majority of people including even upper middle class professionals. Yeah I guess technically my family could afford a 650 sqft condo in some areas of downtown but we couldn't actually live in it because it would basically be one room with a closet toilet.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »We live downstate IL mid-size community....same house in S. Cali or Seattle would be 4-5X as much.
Yeah not even an exaggeration....pretty spot on. Median price per square foot for houses:
Seattle: $506
Los Angeles: $635
Illinois: $141
Illinois x 4 = Seattle
Illinois x 5 = So Cal.
Your house would probably be ~1.2 million in Seattle. Food prices probably a little higher in Seattle as well but not nearly to that degree.
Acutely aware after family moved from St. Louis to Mission Viejo in the mid 1970s and living as a single sailor in San Diego in 1996. Food, gas, basics in general were about double the price largely due to taxes associated with the product. Economics in motion - supply and demand.
I don't want to divert too much from the thread's topic, but housing (in Seattle at least) is NOT economics in motion. It's investors having their fun. The demand for low-income housing is through the roof. Nine percent of children attending public schools do not have a roof over their heads at night. An overwhelming number of adults living without shelter are employed full time. But there are plenty of housing options for the top 20% and plenty of vacant properties too (although a lot of that is zoned for business). I'm sure we'll be like Vancouver, BC soon, with vacant overpriced properties everywhere you look.
High demand, low supply. How is this not economics? Seattle's primary issue is dealing with reality.
You can either rail against a system which you have no control over, or you can change that which you have control over. Get a group of investors together and purchase property offering low-income housing.
Eh I think you can understand that when a city (which obviously has to employ a labor force and base-level professional workers) has housing costs that vastly exceed the income of those people it creates a very awkward situation where you need people to work in the city but they can't afford to live in the city. You can't really get a house within the Seattle city limits for less than 500k now and if you get one that is 500k you are talking like a 900 sqft townhome on the outskirts.
This is precisely my point. We can sit and discuss it, but market forces being what they are those with wealth can either decide to provide necessities to maintain status quo or suffer. Until workers utilize their power there will be no change. Seattle like so many other cities needs to quickly come to terms with reality. Chicago is in the same situation, only the disparity is not as obvious. Government blames industry. Industry blames government. Both have the power to implement a solution.
No offense but I think that Vancouver and Seattle are in rather unique situations that you aren't fully grasping. The real estate economy is so "booming" or "bubbling" that it has attracted a lot of foreign investment of people buying up property not to occupy it or even to use it really but like they are valuable trading cards or something. So the market is being driven by people who aren't actually affected by the living conditions of the city itself. Sure, free market capitalism balances the whole system, but if you look locally to the actual people who live in the actual city they are getting kind of screwed by investor wars driving up prices and making housing overpriced and non-functional for the general population. When a run down 900 sq ft townhouse costs more than a typically 2 person household can afford that is sort of a problem and if the market "equalizes" by crashing that isn't good either.
My wife and I both work and are both professionals both earning more than the national average and we managed to buy a 1600 sqft home in the outskirts of Seattle 3 years ago. If we were trying today I don't think we could afford a house in Seattle at all. I don't think anything like that is happening in Chicago. Looks to me from Zillow like in Chcago can buy a 3 bed 3 bath 2000 sqft house like literally in the downtown area for under 500k. In Seattle that would be something like 2 million and you cannot buy something that size within the city limits at all for 500k.
It depends on the neighborhood in Chicago, and how much of a fixer-upper it is. Downtown doesn't really have houses, so I'm curious what that listing is. I would not expect to see a house near downtown for less than $500K (or near $500K), in many closer in neighborhoods a teardown would be more. (My guess is you may be talking Humboldt Park or maybe certain parts of the South Side.)
That said, the Chicago market is WAY better for buyers than Seattle and some other places, although it's still quite expensive in others. (Here's a map of price per sq ft by neighborhood, although there's quite a variety depending on different factors: https://www.trulia.com/home_prices/Illinois/Chicago-heat_map/)
I was just talking to a friend who is a real estate developer in another city about why Chicago is so comparatively cheap, and I really think a lot of it is the layout of the city. If you get priced out of the longstanding more convenient/better neighborhoods, you can move west (or northwest) within the city and find affordable housing. Now, you might be living in a place that's basically a suburb, but it's within city limits and affordable.
You see that with some of the neighborhoods now being gentrified and ones that have gentrified more recently, although there's sufficient supply now (and supply is in relative terms for here at a shortage) that there's not pressure on many other neighborhoods and there are dirt cheap neighborhoods with a lovely housing stock and pretty convenient to downtown that are currently impossible because of crime (for example, East Garfield Park).
By house I mean condo in that case. You aren't going to get a "house" in Seattle for that much either and around downtown it'll be a condo. I'm also not familiar with Chicago so I am somewhat guessing as to where the downtown area is.
Ah. Yes, you can easily find a 2 bd/2 bath condo in downtown (or desirable neighborhoods near downtown, living right in the Loop is possible but the options are much more limited/very specific, and not the highest priced since for many that would not be desirable compared to other neighborhoods convenient to the Loop) for less than $500K.I live on the very outskirts of Seattle in a small house. Apparently I could find a larger space in the downtown of a major metropoliton midwestern city for less money. That is pretty nuts.
It's nuts that Seattle is so expensive, yes. But if you are looking at condos you do have to factor in assessments ($834/month in that place, much more in many highrises). Not at all arguing that Seattle is not much more expensive than Chicago, as I believe it is, but I do think you aren't comparing like to like.
But in our market there is a big difference between house and condo, too, so I would not compare your house to a condo, and I'd look at distance from downtown. What's your commuting time/miles to downtown, as that would help me find some comparable neighborhoods?
Well my like to like comparison was to an equivalent sized condo in downtown Seattle that was 5x more money and I assume also had assessments or building fees. My home was just to say even living in a smaller space in the outskirts costs more but wasn't trying to say that was like to like.
Right, but you weren't comparing like to like, which is why I posted a different condo to show that condo costs vary a HUGE amount based on specifics. The one you showed in the location you were taking about would not have been so much cheaper in Chicago as the one you compared it with. (Not disagreeing with the basic point, but I think your perception of the market here is that it is a lot cheaper than reality.)
Going downtown is probably about a 50 minute commute by transit and maybe 35 by car not including trying to park (I use transit and I dont go all the way downtown). I live 8 miles from downtown and probably 1/2 mile from the city limit.[/quote]
I used to live about 6 miles from my downtown office (in a condo), which was about 45 min by public transportation. About 45 min driving in rush hour, much less not in rush hour, but you wouldn't drive anyway since parking is prohibitive. Anyway, in that neighborhood (which is not that close to downtown or the lake), a house these days (that is not a teardown) is at least $1 m (and quite possibly much more).
I now live in a neighborhood similar distance as you -- about 8 miles from downtown (much more than 1/2 from the city limit, though, since Chicago is bigger and more sprawling, which is relevant). Houses differ a lot based on the specifics, but are generally going to be more than $500K. $500K in this neighborhood will get you a teardown on a larger than standard lot (standard lot in Chicago is 125x25) or a house that's a fixer-upper you need to put significant money into.
But, you can find something quite nice (older, if you like that, as I do) in this or similar neighborhoods for $600K+, although $800-$1m would be common and it is VERY location specific and prices vary a lot based on size, age, style, and specific location.
If you go farther out in Chicago or in neighborhoods not thought to be as convenient or safe you can get lower prices (really quite reasonable middle class prices), but I'm not sure that's exactly the same as comparing to the outskirts of Seattle-- the cheaper houses will be farther than anything in the city in Seattle so more like suburban options (or, in Chicago, in closer but less safe areas).
Again, I totally agree that Chicago is way cheaper than Seattle (the housing inflation in Chicago has been much more under control, the availability is much greater). I think Chicago has really reasonable housing costs overall. But I just think that you weren't really comparing like to like so were overstating how cheap it is here, especially if you mean to talk about the most expensive neighborhoods.
Sorry for this detour, I'm interested in the real estate market, especially locally.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »We live downstate IL mid-size community....same house in S. Cali or Seattle would be 4-5X as much.
Yeah not even an exaggeration....pretty spot on. Median price per square foot for houses:
Seattle: $506
Los Angeles: $635
Illinois: $141
Illinois x 4 = Seattle
Illinois x 5 = So Cal.
Your house would probably be ~1.2 million in Seattle. Food prices probably a little higher in Seattle as well but not nearly to that degree.
Acutely aware after family moved from St. Louis to Mission Viejo in the mid 1970s and living as a single sailor in San Diego in 1996. Food, gas, basics in general were about double the price largely due to taxes associated with the product. Economics in motion - supply and demand.
I don't want to divert too much from the thread's topic, but housing (in Seattle at least) is NOT economics in motion. It's investors having their fun. The demand for low-income housing is through the roof. Nine percent of children attending public schools do not have a roof over their heads at night. An overwhelming number of adults living without shelter are employed full time. But there are plenty of housing options for the top 20% and plenty of vacant properties too (although a lot of that is zoned for business). I'm sure we'll be like Vancouver, BC soon, with vacant overpriced properties everywhere you look.
High demand, low supply. How is this not economics? Seattle's primary issue is dealing with reality.
You can either rail against a system which you have no control over, or you can change that which you have control over. Get a group of investors together and purchase property offering low-income housing.
Eh I think you can understand that when a city (which obviously has to employ a labor force and base-level professional workers) has housing costs that vastly exceed the income of those people it creates a very awkward situation where you need people to work in the city but they can't afford to live in the city. You can't really get a house within the Seattle city limits for less than 500k now and if you get one that is 500k you are talking like a 900 sqft townhome on the outskirts.
This is precisely my point. We can sit and discuss it, but market forces being what they are those with wealth can either decide to provide necessities to maintain status quo or suffer. Until workers utilize their power there will be no change. Seattle like so many other cities needs to quickly come to terms with reality. Chicago is in the same situation, only the disparity is not as obvious. Government blames industry. Industry blames government. Both have the power to implement a solution.
No offense but I think that Vancouver and Seattle are in rather unique situations that you aren't fully grasping. The real estate economy is so "booming" or "bubbling" that it has attracted a lot of foreign investment of people buying up property not to occupy it or even to use it really but like they are valuable trading cards or something. So the market is being driven by people who aren't actually affected by the living conditions of the city itself. Sure, free market capitalism balances the whole system, but if you look locally to the actual people who live in the actual city they are getting kind of screwed by investor wars driving up prices and making housing overpriced and non-functional for the general population. When a run down 900 sq ft townhouse costs more than a typically 2 person household can afford that is sort of a problem and if the market "equalizes" by crashing that isn't good either.
My wife and I both work and are both professionals both earning more than the national average and we managed to buy a 1600 sqft home in the outskirts of Seattle 3 years ago. If we were trying today I don't think we could afford a house in Seattle at all. I don't think anything like that is happening in Chicago. Looks to me from Zillow like in Chcago can buy a 3 bed 3 bath 2000 sqft house like literally in the downtown area for under 500k. In Seattle that would be something like 2 million and you cannot buy something that size within the city limits at all for 500k.
It depends on the neighborhood in Chicago, and how much of a fixer-upper it is. Downtown doesn't really have houses, so I'm curious what that listing is. I would not expect to see a house near downtown for less than $500K (or near $500K), in many closer in neighborhoods a teardown would be more. (My guess is you may be talking Humboldt Park or maybe certain parts of the South Side.)
That said, the Chicago market is WAY better for buyers than Seattle and some other places, although it's still quite expensive in others. (Here's a map of price per sq ft by neighborhood, although there's quite a variety depending on different factors: https://www.trulia.com/home_prices/Illinois/Chicago-heat_map/)
I was just talking to a friend who is a real estate developer in another city about why Chicago is so comparatively cheap, and I really think a lot of it is the layout of the city. If you get priced out of the longstanding more convenient/better neighborhoods, you can move west (or northwest) within the city and find affordable housing. Now, you might be living in a place that's basically a suburb, but it's within city limits and affordable.
You see that with some of the neighborhoods now being gentrified and ones that have gentrified more recently, although there's sufficient supply now (and supply is in relative terms for here at a shortage) that there's not pressure on many other neighborhoods and there are dirt cheap neighborhoods with a lovely housing stock and pretty convenient to downtown that are currently impossible because of crime (for example, East Garfield Park).
By house I mean condo in that case. You aren't going to get a "house" in Seattle for that much either and around downtown it'll be a condo. I'm also not familiar with Chicago so I am somewhat guessing as to where the downtown area is.
Ah. Yes, you can easily find a 2 bd/2 bath condo in downtown (or desirable neighborhoods near downtown, living right in the Loop is possible but the options are much more limited/very specific, and not the highest priced since for many that would not be desirable compared to other neighborhoods convenient to the Loop) for less than $500K.I live on the very outskirts of Seattle in a small house. Apparently I could find a larger space in the downtown of a major metropoliton midwestern city for less money. That is pretty nuts.
It's nuts that Seattle is so expensive, yes. But if you are looking at condos you do have to factor in assessments ($834/month in that place, much more in many highrises). Not at all arguing that Seattle is not much more expensive than Chicago, as I believe it is, but I do think you aren't comparing like to like.
But in our market there is a big difference between house and condo, too, so I would not compare your house to a condo, and I'd look at distance from downtown. What's your commuting time/miles to downtown, as that would help me find some comparable neighborhoods?
Well my like to like comparison was to an equivalent sized condo in downtown Seattle that was 5x more money and I assume also had assessments or building fees. My home was just to say even living in a smaller space in the outskirts costs more but wasn't trying to say that was like to like.
Right, but you weren't comparing like to like, which is why I posted a different condo to show that condo costs vary a HUGE amount based on specifics. The one you showed in the location you were taking about would not have been so much cheaper in Chicago as the one you compared it with. (Not disagreeing with the basic point, but I think your perception of the market here is that it is a lot cheaper than reality.)
Going downtown is probably about a 50 minute commute by transit and maybe 35 by car not including trying to park (I use transit and I dont go all the way downtown). I live 8 miles from downtown and probably 1/2 mile from the city limit.
I used to live about 6 miles from my downtown office (in a condo), which was about 45 min by public transportation. About 45 min driving in rush hour, much less not in rush hour, but you wouldn't drive anyway since parking is prohibitive. Anyway, in that neighborhood (which is not that close to downtown or the lake), a house these days (that is not a teardown) is at least $1 m (and quite possibly much more).
I now live in a neighborhood similar distance as you -- about 8 miles from downtown (much more than 1/2 from the city limit, though, since Chicago is bigger and more sprawling, which is relevant). Houses differ a lot based on the specifics, but are generally going to be more than $500K. $500K in this neighborhood will get you a teardown on a larger than standard lot (standard lot in Chicago is 125x25) or a house that's a fixer-upper you need to put significant money into.
But, you can find something quite nice (older, if you like that, as I do) in this or similar neighborhoods for $600K+, although $800-$1m would be common and it is VERY location specific and prices vary a lot based on size, age, style, and specific location.
If you go farther out in Chicago or in neighborhoods not thought to be as convenient or safe you can get lower prices (really quite reasonable middle class prices), but I'm not sure that's exactly the same as comparing to the outskirts of Seattle-- the cheaper houses will be farther than anything in the city in Seattle so more like suburban options (or, in Chicago, in closer but less safe areas).
Again, I totally agree that Chicago is way cheaper than Seattle (the housing inflation in Chicago has been much more under control, the availability is much greater). I think Chicago has really reasonable housing costs overall. But I just think that you weren't really comparing like to like so were overstating how cheap it is here, especially if you mean to talk about the most expensive neighborhoods.
Sorry for this detour, I'm interested in the real estate market, especially locally.[/quote]
No worries, personally I feel like we are discussing an interesting topic not arguing so no need to hedge your words with concern you might offend.
How about this. Let's not complicate with what neighborhood or how new or what the view is...let's just pick specs for what we'd consider sort of a reasonable minimum for a 4 person family home and put that into Zillow and see what we find.
Let's say without checking in advanced a 3 bed 2 bath 1500 sqft home (townhouse/condo/house) and let's say for 500k within the city and no bank foreclosures or auctions and just see how far out before listings appear.
I get Chicago has larger city limits so can just see how far from downtown before something like that shows up. If youd rather set different values for the home I'm good with whatever you choose.1 -
Here is a map from Zillow of Seattle with the following settings.
A house, condo or townhome for sale by agent or owner for up to 500k that is 1500 sq ft with 3+ bed and 2+ bath.
Here is what the map looks like
The northern edge of seattle is at 145th street so that one house in the north is the only one technically in Seattle and it is next to a highway in a somewhat bad area.
0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »What I'd be curious about is how many people work in downtown that live in or with a mile of downtown relative to the two cities. In Seattle I'm guessing it is close to zero although there are probably some bankers or finance people that do I'm sure.
Percentage-wise, very few. That's not even necessarily that desirable here. The most expensive residential neighborhoods would be outside a mile for the most part unless you are talking about specialized luxury condo buildings -- and even so more of the luxury condo buildings are more than a mile, in say the Gold Coast. The market here is more focused on neighborhoods, not downtown, which probably relates to the fact that it sprawls much more.
So anyway, the housing actually in the Loop or the closest neighborhoods isn't the most desirable or caters to a very specific market (to some degree people put up by companies). That's not wholly true -- there's some super nice stuff (expensive!, new trendy buildings), and some really not very nice stuff -- you have to know the area to know what's what, and some parts that may look great to someone who doesn't know the city are in areas that would be dead or likely only second places for someone with a house in the 'burbs.Just looking at housing in Chicago it seems to me like if you are a middle class professional you could afford a house/townhome/condo large enough for a family pretty much anywhere.
Yes, depending on what you are willing to sacrifice for space/outdoor area, sure. And same with the 'burbs, you can get something very nice with decent space in various 'burbs for much less than others (even assuming good school, safe).
What you can't do is get a house everywhere (for that kind of price), and I brought that up because you were comparing it to your house.
Again, I don't disagree that Seattle has much more of a housing shortage (for the reasons you mentioned, but I didn't quite get that it continued to that extent to the 'burbs) and that Seattle prices are crazy and Chicago more reasonable, but I don't think it's as cheap here, if you want comparable, as you were assuming. Similarly, I did a redfin search for 2 bed/2 bath under $500K in Seattle and saw a bunch of places (not nearly as many as here, obviously). I am willing to believe -- and do, in fact -- that there are things about those properties that make them less desirable that I wouldn't know, that's all I'm saying. A property like the one you compared to the one in downtown Chicago would go for a lot more here than the Chicago comparison one will -- it's more like million dollar condos like:
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/340-E-Randolph-St-60601/unit-2104/home/26815118 or
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/225-N-Columbus-Dr-60601/unit-7606/home/52638118 ($1 m).
It's nicer and bigger than this $800K condo: https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/130-N-Garland-Ct-60602/unit-909/home/12599119
Point that Seattle is way more expensive still stands, of course, but the difference is less.
What Chicago has that keeps prices from going truly sky high even in the pricier neighborhoods (other than especially desirable buildings) is competition -- at a certain point if you can't imaging paying $1 m for some former workers cottage, you go farther north, farther west, or to some gentrifying neighborhood, or to the burbs. Seems like Seattle just totally lacks that kind of competition, which is an issue.
Heh, sorry, like I said I'm interested in all this.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »How about this. Let's not complicate with what neighborhood or how new or what the view is...let's just pick specs for what we'd consider sort of a reasonable minimum for a 4 person family home and put that into Zillow and see what we find.
Let's say without checking in advanced a 3 bed 2 bath 1500 sqft home (townhouse/condo/house) and let's say for 500k within the city and no bank foreclosures or auctions and just see how far out before listings appear.
I get Chicago has larger city limits so can just see how far from downtown before something like that shows up. If youd rather set different values for the home I'm good with whatever you choose.
You can't do that in Chicago, as neighborhood makes a HUGE difference (as does how much work you need to put into the place). Maybe (likely?) Seattle is not the same, but within the same # of miles away you will get hugely different costs here due to (1) transportation, (2) proximity to the lake vs. being right by the L/highway (you can find a bargain anywhere if you will take the noise or certain busy streets), (3) perceptions of crime/safety, and (4) schools (my old neighborhood has a few elementary schools that are desirable, for example).
Also, you are assuming far out from downtown is the issue here, and it's not (although distance is a negative at some point). Right downtown will be less expensive than some other areas unless a super luxury building because until recently (and IMO still, but some would disagree) living right downtown lacks that neighborhood feel and is kind of dead on the weekends but for touristy things.
But like I said, if the question is whether Seattle is affordable to people making under [put in what you want] vs. Chicago, I think we totally agree. Chicago is really, really affordable. But the condo you showed in Seattle would NOT go for $500K downtown here. That's all I was saying. That was a luxury building, or seemed to be. If the question is what percentage of the market in a decent (safe) neighborhood within (say) 5 miles of downtown is for $500K or under, clearly Chicago wins that hands down, even on a percentage basis. Again, I think the market pressure from the properties farther out is really important, and Seattle doesn't have that.
Random aside: my parents lived in Seattle in the late '60s, and when my dad and I did the half marathon a couple of years ago he was reminiscing about how cheap his place (rental) was and wondering what it would go for now. I think he determined it wasn't there any more, but there's no comparison, of course.1 -
$600-700 per month for my bf and me including toilettries. I live in an expensive area (Southern California) and buy only free range or grass fed meat, pasture raised eggs, wild caught shrimp, and organic fruits and veggies on the dirty dozen list. I do buy some things in bulk which saves money. I'm not sure if this is a lot or not. I do use coupons when possible. I just calculated that what I spend is 8% of my take home pay. My mortgage is 45% of my income and the biggest expense. I dont eat out much, maybe twice a month.
The grass fed beef I buy is $10/1 lb ground beef.
$4/half gallon milk.
$4/lb strawberries.
$8/lb chicken.
$5/package of 7 slices turkey bacon.
$5/dozen eggs.
$4/lb honeycrisp apples.
We live in central California & spend about $400/month on the two of us not including the dogs, My dtr lives in San Jose & it's very pricey there, spends a lot more than us. I know what it's like3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »How about this. Let's not complicate with what neighborhood or how new or what the view is...let's just pick specs for what we'd consider sort of a reasonable minimum for a 4 person family home and put that into Zillow and see what we find.
Let's say without checking in advanced a 3 bed 2 bath 1500 sqft home (townhouse/condo/house) and let's say for 500k within the city and no bank foreclosures or auctions and just see how far out before listings appear.
I get Chicago has larger city limits so can just see how far from downtown before something like that shows up. If youd rather set different values for the home I'm good with whatever you choose.
You can't do that in Chicago, as neighborhood makes a HUGE difference (as does how much work you need to put into the place). Maybe (likely?) Seattle is not the same, but within the same # of miles away you will get hugely different costs here due to (1) transportation, (2) proximity to the lake vs. being right by the L/highway (you can find a bargain anywhere if you will take the noise or certain busy streets), (3) perceptions of crime/safety, and (4) schools (my old neighborhood has a few elementary schools that are desirable, for example).
Also, you are assuming far out from downtown is the issue here, and it's not (although distance is a negative at some point). Right downtown will be less expensive than some other areas unless a super luxury building because until recently (and IMO still, but some would disagree) living right downtown lacks that neighborhood feel and is kind of dead on the weekends but for touristy things.
But like I said, if the question is whether Seattle is affordable to people making under [put in what you want] vs. Chicago, I think we totally agree. Chicago is really, really affordable. But the condo you showed in Seattle would NOT go for $500K downtown here. That's all I was saying. That was a luxury building, or seemed to be. If the question is what percentage of the market in a decent (safe) neighborhood within (say) 5 miles of downtown is for $500K or under, clearly Chicago wins that hands down, even on a percentage basis. Again, I think the market pressure from the properties farther out is really important, and Seattle doesn't have that.
Random aside: my parents lived in Seattle in the late '60s, and when my dad and I did the half marathon a couple of years ago he was reminiscing about how cheap his place (rental) was and wondering what it would go for now. I think he determined it wasn't there any more, but there's no comparison, of course.
I guess the point I was trying to illustrate was it doesn't matter what neighborhood in Seattle or if you go to one of the eastern suburbs also depicted in that map...there just aren't reasonable homes in or around Seattle for less than 500k and honestly that map doesn't add many dots if you bump that to 600k either. Sure there are areas that are cheaper than other areas....but nothing even the middle class would consider affordable.
If I did the same search in Chicago my guess is the map would be full of dots with maybe a few empty spots here or there in the ritzy areas....and it's not like the salaries here ar all that much more.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Here is a map from Zillow of Seattle with the following settings.
A house, condo or townhome for sale by agent or owner for up to 500k that is 1500 sq ft with 3+ bed and 2+ bath.
Here is what the map looks like
The northern edge of seattle is at 145th street so that one house in the north is the only one technically in Seattle and it is next to a highway in a somewhat bad area.
The equivalent search term for the Chicago area. Less of a zoom and even then the number of dots exceeds what can be displayed...if you zoom in on an area it adds more dots.
0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »How about this. Let's not complicate with what neighborhood or how new or what the view is...let's just pick specs for what we'd consider sort of a reasonable minimum for a 4 person family home and put that into Zillow and see what we find.
Let's say without checking in advanced a 3 bed 2 bath 1500 sqft home (townhouse/condo/house) and let's say for 500k within the city and no bank foreclosures or auctions and just see how far out before listings appear.
I get Chicago has larger city limits so can just see how far from downtown before something like that shows up. If youd rather set different values for the home I'm good with whatever you choose.
You can't do that in Chicago, as neighborhood makes a HUGE difference (as does how much work you need to put into the place). Maybe (likely?) Seattle is not the same, but within the same # of miles away you will get hugely different costs here due to (1) transportation, (2) proximity to the lake vs. being right by the L/highway (you can find a bargain anywhere if you will take the noise or certain busy streets), (3) perceptions of crime/safety, and (4) schools (my old neighborhood has a few elementary schools that are desirable, for example).
Also, you are assuming far out from downtown is the issue here, and it's not (although distance is a negative at some point). Right downtown will be less expensive than some other areas unless a super luxury building because until recently (and IMO still, but some would disagree) living right downtown lacks that neighborhood feel and is kind of dead on the weekends but for touristy things.
But like I said, if the question is whether Seattle is affordable to people making under [put in what you want] vs. Chicago, I think we totally agree. Chicago is really, really affordable. But the condo you showed in Seattle would NOT go for $500K downtown here. That's all I was saying. That was a luxury building, or seemed to be. If the question is what percentage of the market in a decent (safe) neighborhood within (say) 5 miles of downtown is for $500K or under, clearly Chicago wins that hands down, even on a percentage basis. Again, I think the market pressure from the properties farther out is really important, and Seattle doesn't have that.
Random aside: my parents lived in Seattle in the late '60s, and when my dad and I did the half marathon a couple of years ago he was reminiscing about how cheap his place (rental) was and wondering what it would go for now. I think he determined it wasn't there any more, but there's no comparison, of course.
I guess the point I was trying to illustrate was it doesn't matter what neighborhood in Seattle or if you go to one of the eastern suburbs also depicted in that map...there just aren't reasonable homes in or around Seattle for less than 500k and honestly that map doesn't add many dots if you bump that to 600k either. Sure there are areas that are cheaper than other areas....but nothing even the middle class would consider affordable.
If I did the same search in Chicago my guess is the map would be full of dots with maybe a few empty spots here or there in the ritzy areas....and it's not like the salaries here ar all that much more.
Yeah, we aren't in disagreement about that.
I'm just saying that that doesn't mean that some couple with two kids who want to live in a decent/safe neighborhood a reasonable commute from work and have a house and a local school that you find acceptable -- I'm assuming this is what you have -- won't necessarily be able to do that under $500K. Most families with two professional parents who want to raise kids in the city will be going to areas where a house is well over $500K, and a condo big enough for a family of that size is also generally over $500K.
There are ALSO neighborhoods in Chicago that are safe and family oriented and where a house will be under $500K, which seems like a huge difference from Seattle (you seem to keep trying to convince me that Seattle is much more expensive and I already agree with that). However, those are generally not what the same 2 professionals who want to live in a neighborhood with desirable schools and close to downtown will be looking at. They are in neighborhoods that are more like suburbs, populated to large extent due to the rule that city workers live in the city plus them being long standing neighborhoods that were built in the first half of the 20th century for working people -- the bungalow belt. I think this is also something we have that Seattle just doesn't, due to geography and history. Same with the fact that you can get a nice place in certain close in (and farther out) 'burbs for less than $500K.
But yes, it's easy to find housing in Chicago for under $500K, and if you are willing to live in a smaller 1-2 bedroom condo that's a big older/rundown, it's possible to do that even in more expensive neighborhoods. The market for a house/housing for a family with school age children is somewhat separate from that, but being in Seattle just having a place available I'm sure seems like a big difference (and it is).
It seems to me that the lack of housing in Seattle is largely geographic, but to what extent do you think it is related to zoning/being unwilling to build more because of density or restrictions on height and so on? Chicago has a much different situation when it comes to population pressure and size, but nevertheless there seems to be tons of new development going on constantly.0 -
(That map of Chicago includes some western 'burbs, as well as neighborhoods you would not be willing to live in, I'd imagine, and is far different than what I see on Redfin for 3 bed, which is what I'd use for the local market. But like I said, we aren't debating the main point, which is the one I think you keep trying to make.)0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions