1. Los Angeles
Median home price: $589,900
Median household income: $58,319
Recent affordable home sales: 3%
2. San Francisco
Median home price: $748,100
Median household income: $79,676
Recent affordable home sales: 6.7%
3. San Diego
Median home price: $549,200
Median household income: $66,178
Recent affordable home sales: 9.4%
4. New York
Median home price: $463,700
Median household income: $67,419
Recent affordable home sales: 6%
5. Miami, Florida
Median home price: $385,300
Median household income: $50,173
Recent affordable home sales: 10%
6. Sacramento, California
Median home price: $365,500
Median household income: $63,750
Recent affordable home sales: 13.4%
7. Las Vegas, Nevada
Median home price: $310,100
Median household income: $56,886
Recent affordable home sales: 18.9%
8. Seattle, Washington
Median home price: $387,400
Median household income: $76,104
Recent affordable home sales: 28.3%
9. Boston, Mass
Median home price: $387,400
Median household income: $76,104
Recent affordable home sales: 28.3%
10. Orlando, Florida
Median home price: $267,000
Median household income: $51,806
Recent affordable home sales: 26.1%
[a href="vny!://www.forbes.com/home/media/2007/07/20/unaffordable-housing-property-forbeslife-cx_mw_0723realestate.html"]vny!://www.forbes.com/home/media/2007/07/20/unaffordable-housing-property-forbeslife-cx_mw_0723realestate.html[/a]
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sacramento!!! You've got to be kidding. How in the world is that place up on this list.
What's wrong with Sacramento ? I thought it was quite beautiful.
If Vancouver was on that list (I know it's an American list), where would it be?
average house in Vancouver (city) $503,141
average median income $51,268
2005 stats
[a href="vny!://www.straight.com/article/the-promise-of-communal-living?#"]vny!://www.straight.com/article/the-promise-of-communal-living?#[/a]
So put that in american money
476,639
48,563
thus confirms the fact that you need to be well off to own a home. Because the average income can't afford a home.
Meanwhile the BC Liberals give tax breaks to the rich.
I know its the west coast but that figure in american money is appauling.
Its Sacramento.
Many people were priced out in the SF Bay Area so they buy homes in Sacramento....I know of several people who do the 1.5 hr (one way) commute to the Bay Area daily and several who stay with relatives weekdays and return to families for weekends
ah that makes sense. (not the commute though)
compare to Canada, owning a home in the US is such a bargain..........when doing income taxes you get to write off property taxes and mortgage interest against your income..........and up to $500,000 (for married couple) capital gains tax free when you sell.
LOL!
[TABLE bgColor=#ffffdd border=1] [TBODY] [TR] [TD align=middle colSpan=2][SMALL]Anti-Spam Bot-Stopper
Please type the text below into this field[/SMALL][/TD][/TR] [TR] [TD align=middle] [STYLE type=text/css] TD.at_r1 (vertical-align:bottom;) [/STYLE] [TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0] [TBODY] [TR] [TD][/TD] [TD class=at_r1 rowSpan=2]uc[/TD] [TD][/TD][/TR] [TR] [TD]eun[/TD] [TD]h[/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE][/TD] [TD][INPUT type=hidden value=23481120e08bbbaad62ddf49fd6cc715 name=sauce_check][INPUT size=10 value=eunuch name=sauce][/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]
Honestly for me, I'm not a house person. All they seem to become is one huge storage unit. You buy a house and then you have to fill it. If I had a house I'd like the UK/Europe style terraced homes if I wanted a home. You would still get your garden in the back but at the same time governments save space decrease sprawl.
(//vny!://emiliewood.com/photos/february2005/23-feb-05-colours2.jpg)
I see you haven't visited San Francisco.........that's how some neighborhoods are built
yup. We need to build more homes like that.
Speaking of affordable homes. IKEA is in the home building business.
(//vny!://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Business/Pix/pictures/2006/12/01/ikea372.jpg)
[a href="vny!://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1961670,00.html"]vny!://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1961670,00.html[/a]
[a href="vny!://www.boklok.com/"]vny!://www.boklok.com/[/a]
AWESOME.
Aaaa...yea. Welcome to my shoebox.....make yourself comfy.
SD....that's a mighty big contrast to a log cabin or A-frame you were so fond of a short time ago.
You couldn't GIVE me one of those places.....with free utilities and lifetime groceries.
its affordable housing for the masses. People can't afford homes anymore. As I mentioned earlier if you make the median Vancouver average salary 50k. You can't afford a home.
(//vny!://static3.bareka.com/photos/medium/349210/kopenhagenstraat.jpg)
another good example. this is in Eastern Holland
Barracks. Good is not a term I would use for this 'style' of housing.
So, you don't like these either?
(//vny!://www.city-data.com/cpicc/cfiles5487.jpg)
Those are they same thing.
Oh no they're not.
They have style and warmth. If you're comparing boxes to those......well, I don't know what to say.
The 'lifestyle' may be somewhat the same. But I could never get a sense that those 'boxes' were a 'home'.
[a href="vny!://www.straight.com/article/home-ownership-eludes-most"]vny!://www.straight.com/article/home-ownership-eludes-most[/a]
so you do like 'row homes' they've just have to have character. okay got it.
in the 'new urban' neighbourhood in my area they're building these:
(//vny!://www.tndwest.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/StChasrowa.jpg)
They can attach a 'NOW buzz phrase' to them....but they're still ugly.
No....I don't like row homes.....but I understand the need for them. However your pics show that they can be done with some some attention to design and style. I've done the sub-division thing before....never again. Next stop for me (dragging kicking and screaming) will be the old folks home....and I sure hope when that time comes, there is an architect around that has some imagination.
ah I see, so you would prefer an apartment or condo in the city?
No....I would prefer to be far enough away from my neighbour to not hear their morning bathroom activities....their love of opera....or to smell their menu 3 times a day.
I don't want to know what time they went out, or what time they arrived home. I don't want to listen to Fee-Fee practising her barking skills all day or hear their personal conversations on their postage stamp deck.
Gimme some green.(//vny!://discoverseattle.net/forums/richedit/smileys/Happy/12.gif) I'm spoiled....what can I say.
SO....if I HAD to live in the city...these are the things I would look for. Attention to sound-proofing....air quality control and privacy...and a few square feet to plant something green.
hmmmm you've given me a challenge.
I have your 'ideal' city home. Give me a day.
well this house certainly isn't an affordable home its in Kits and is probably a freaking lot but it fits your criteria.
(//vny!://static1.bareka.com/photos/medium/1174868/point-grey.jpg)
It's still a box. Well, maybe it's a little more. A box on a box. Uh uh.
It is all what an individual is into. All I know is I hated my condo with a passion. Felt like another sardine in a can.
sports, the second you have a kid, (not saying you should have kids or not), but your house fills up really fast.
I am not in suburbia either. My house was built around the WWII era. Big trees, older style, walking distance to my downtown job. But the houses are still pretty close to each other.
I think what P.C. has sounds what would be perfect for me too.
P.C., yes, yes you are spoiled!! haha! But I am sure you take nothing for granted. I feel you love your place.
I know, its about the kids. But as I've grown up in a condo and a house. The house became a storage unit.
I guess it depends what you are storing too? I have a massive storage pile too. Camping stuff, old photos, etc. I try to get rid of crap I don't need though.
More row houses ideas:
St. John's Newfoundland
(//vny!://static1.bareka.com/photos/medium/1249188/gower-street.jpg)
The backyard in one of those 'boxes' in Bremen Germany
(//vny!://static4.bareka.com/photos/medium/411619/hinterhof.jpg)
I know, its about the kids. But as I've grown up in a condo and a house. The house became a storage unit.
My house became a home......something I never felt in appartments or condos.
yes, but did you have 2 kids in it that out grew it?
I couldn't even walk through the kitchen.
Umm....well, no.
I had 3 kids.
3 Kids! That is cool!
nevermind.
Anyway everyone's missing my point. You can't afford a house in Vancouver unless you make at least 110k the bank won't give you a loan. That puts the majority of people who make between 35 and 60k out of luck. And everytime somebody builds a giant condo its not for the majority of the people its another toy for the rich. We are losing the middle class. Nobody seems to care, they have a voice but they don't use it and the same old same old gets elected to serve the rich. Sooner or later the middle class is going to have enough and they're just going to leave the city and the area.
So there are at least 250,000 people I bet who want a home in Vancouver but don't make triple digits. They would gladly take those 'boxes'. Its a home. We have a housing crisis and nobody seems to give a hoot.
Granted, things have changed. But remember, that one of the things that has changed, is the attitude that it's everybody's right to OWN a home.....That a 20 year old can move right into the real estate market with his first job. People used to actually SAVE....for YEARS, to be able to have enough of a down payment to make their monthy payments managable.
I'm not talking about people my age wanting a home. I'm talking about teachers, fire fighters, police officers, nurses, the people that make up the communities yet can't afford to live in it.
Saving up for a home, not possible anymore. The middle class 30k-60k barely makes enough to survive in an apartment. How are they expected to save up for a home? You can't start a family at 50.
Then it leaks into population growth. Canada needs immigration to keep population up. Because nobody is having kids. One of the factors. Homes. Nobody can afford a home and nobody wants to raise a kid or kids in an apartment complex. The North American view of a family is a house not an apartment/condo. Until we can have the majority of the people able to own a home, they will be reluctant to have kids.
Canada's the only country in the G8 without a national housing plan. Canada's also the only country in the western world without a national public transportation plan too.
I'm not talking about people my age wanting a home. I'm talking about teachers, fire fighters, police officers, nurses, the people that make up the communities yet can't afford to live in it.
Saving up for a home, not possible anymore. The middle class 30k-60k barely makes enough to survive in an apartment. How are they expected to save up for a home?
I don't fully buy into that. You have to admit, that at least some of the problem stems from the 'I want it all, and I want it NOW' school of thought. I know an awful lot of lower income people who have managed to buy homes. It required a lot of years of going without and making do. Stashing away every cent they could....like....actually WORKING toward the goal. No fancy clothes...no fancy cars....no lattes or dinners out. It's called priorities. I'm not saying it's easy....but it's do-able.
P.C. wrote:
I don't fully buy into that. You have to admit, that at least some of the problem stems from the 'I want it all, and I want it NOW' school of thought. I know an awful lot of lower income people who have managed to buy homes. It required a lot of years of going without and making do. Stashing away every cent they could....like....actually WORKING toward the goal. No fancy clothes...no fancy cars....no lattes or dinners out. It's called priorities. I'm not saying it's easy....but it's do-able.[/DIV]
Amen to that!
I remember the first 3-4 years after I bought my first home I had to do without a lot of luxuries and made sacrifices so I could make mortgage payments. Life got easier as I began to make more money and equity started building in the house and I could refinance with better rates.
I don't even think its the "I want it all" group. Statistics Canada says 30-60k is the 'middle class'. In order to own the average home price in the GVRD you need to make 110k.
I don't think the 30-60k group which is the majority is living a "I want it all" life. That would be the rich and super well off people.
Never got the chance to visit that complex, too far from the center and not enough time, but I know it was an amazing experiment at the time.
[FONT color=#800080][A href="vny!://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Marx-Hof"]vny!://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Marx-Hof[/A][/FONT][A href="vny!://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Marx-Hof"][/A]
they might aspire to that idea, which would explain the middle class voting for political parties that do not reflect the reality for them. (Example my uncle who is poor and filed for bankruptecy before is a diehard neo conservative hates democrats)
There's a difference in my opinion from aspiring and the reality. Yeah we can all aspire to be super rich and wealthy, but it ain't happening because that's not reality.
In the end its a voting issue and getting people who's lives depend the most on political issues to vote. Everyone knows the well off and elderly vote the most. And well they're going to vote for their own interests which aren't in the interests of the majority. Its getting the majority out to vote. People might think politics is just silly and a sport. But in reality politics is about people's lives. People's lives can change drastically on an election result.
I don't even think its the "I want it all" group. Statistics Canada says 30-60k is the 'middle class'. In order to own the average home price in the GVRD you need to make 110k.
I think the problem you're having SD....is you are relying too heavily on 'stats', instead of life experience, to form your conclusions. The 'stats' aren't going to tell you a thing about WHY some people can't make ends meet, while others with lesser incomes are doing fine.
The statistics that say that you have to make X to afford Y is all about math and figures.
If couple A and couple B make the same amount of money, and both have goals to buy a home in 5 years. Couple A stashes and saves and does without and couple B lives pay cheque to pay cheque, 'treating' themselves along the way, spending every nickel of what's left over after paying the bills with 3 or 4 credit cards maxed to the hilt. 5 years down the road couple A and couple B purchase a house of the same value. 'A' has saved a substantial down-payment....reducing their monthly payment to a manageable amount. 'B' is singing the blues that nobody can afford a house these days. Stats won't reflect that.
I worked my a*s off to get my first condo. (well, I do still have an a*s...) But, all said and done, it was so worth it. Nobody told me it was going to be easy either. My parents never had the cash to help me out either.
yes they do. Stats don't lie, stats are the ultimate truths. The problem is now couple A can't afford a home even with their constant savings. Because of the social structure and towns we've created you need a car. Cars are the ultimate black holes. Then you've got food, rent, utilities and so on to pay for. For someone making 50k that leaves 5k max usually for 'savings'. And we're not counting couples with kids already. That 'savings' disappears. We don't have universal child care. So if they do somehow come up with a savings of 5k a year that means it will be at least 15 years before they are able to afford a home at current prices. The prices are only going to go up. So a couple at 30 who want a house, can't afford to wait. Nobody starts families at 45. They could but its not practical. 45.
Then developers want to put low income housing in a neighbourhood. Today 'low income' means middle class in the Vancouver sense. The city then says nah and develops a property without housing for the middle class. More sky high condos and townhouses for the rich.
Couple A is not waiting til 45, most likely they'd move.
stats don't lie??
I hope you don't believe any stats from Canadian media or its sources, its all government controlled.
[em]I think the problem you're having SD....is you are relying too heavily on 'stats', instead of life experience, to form your conclusions.[/em]
[/div] I really agree with your conclusion, PC.[/p] [div]
Although it is a struggle, I think from what I see, I see a lot more young people going into serious debt at an early age because of material possessions. That being said, the part I agree with sports is, housing prices are..or did, rise a lot faster than wages did. Especially in Vancouver and Calgary.
yes they do. Stats don't lie, stats are the ultimate truths
You've got to be kidding me right? People who are part of the stats lie which in turn, make stats VERY GENERAL AND DAMN VAGUE!
I am not a believer of stats. I take it with a grain of salt.
The only solution is co-ops.
yes they do. Stats don't lie, stats are the ultimate truths.
It's my turn for big laugh on that one. SD....stats paint a picture with a very broad stroke. I know more people who have prospered in spite of fitting into 'your' figures, than people who haven't. Stats can only state numbers....averages. They don't reflect sacrifice, determination, ingenuity, creativity....or all the other methods people have used to defy the 'stats'.
Devil wrote.....Although it is a struggle, I think from what I see, I see a lot more young people going into serious debt at an early age because of material possessions.
I couldn't agree more......and not from a place of criticism.....just simple observation. Some people's priorities are just different.
Are housing prices out of control and intimidating.....absolutely. Does that make the reality of owning a home impossible ?....I don't think so.
i know stats are just a ball park figure. But still they show trends. The middle class is defined by tax structure. That is 30-60k. When the average housing price is 7x that something isn't working.
I believe that if you have a good job, that pays well you should afford a home. Right now that is not possible.
Stats don't lie. Stats are the ultimate truth.
I know stats are just a ball park figure.
I don't think you do. Those art totally opposing statements.
SD....put the calculator down, and use your head. Those figures are arrived at by taking a figure of income, and calculating it to the cost of a house.
I don't know very many people (if any) who are in the position of starting from square one....no savings....nothing...."I make such and such....and with that.....there isn't a house out there with a price I can afford" That's all those figures are saying. Those whose goals are to buy a house need to do some ground-work first....'position' yourself to be able to afford a house. THERE ARE NO STATS THAT TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION.
It is NOT impossible. I came to that conclusion from personal experiences.....not a book of numbers.
P.C. wrote:
[em]Stats don't lie. Stats are the ultimate truth.[/em]
[em][/em]
[em]I know stats are just a ball park figure.[/em]
I don't think you do. Those art totally opposing statements.
SD....put the calculator down, and use your head. Those figures are arrived at by taking a figure of income, and calculating it to the cost of a house.
I don't know very many people (if any) who are in the position of starting from square one....no savings....nothing...."I make such and such....and with that.....there isn't a house out there with a price I can afford" That's all those figures are saying. Those whose goals are to buy a house need to do some ground-work first....'position' yourself to be able to afford a house. THERE ARE NO STATS THAT TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION.
It is NOT impossible. I came to that conclusion from personal experiences.....not a book of numbers.
Where have I said that people starting from square one should automatically be able to buy a house? Of course people should save money and lay the ground work for a house. They don't come over night. It took my parents 10 years after they were married to buy a house. I grew up in an apartment complex. If it took my parents with two very good paying jobs 8 years to buy a home back in the 80's, its got to be double that now. When I said people making 50k should be able to buy a house I don't mean tomorrow. Its a long process but the process is becoming so long now that its not reasonable. Especially if you want to have kids. People want to have kids in homes not apartments.
I'm using stats to back up personal experiences. They teach you in school that you need a source of information to be credible or people think you're just pulling stuff out of your ass.
Where have I said that [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffbf"]people starting from square one should automatically be able to buy a house[/FONT]? Of course people should save money and lay the ground work for a house. They don't come over night. It took my parents 10 years after they were married to buy a house. I grew up in an apartment complex. If it took my parents with two very good paying jobs 8 years to buy a home back in the 80's, its got to be double that now. When I said people making 50k should be able to buy a house I don't mean tomorrow. Its a long process but the process is becoming so long now that its not reasonable. Especially if you want to have kids. People want to have kids in homes not apartments.
I'm using stats to back up personal experiences. They teach you in school that you need a source of information to be credible or people think you're just pulling stuff out of your ass.
[FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffbf"]That's what those numbers you have pulled up are based on SD.[/FONT] X income equals Y purchase. Nothing else. It's just math.
Using stats to back up personal experiences is fine....when it comes to purchasing real estate....you have no personal experiences.
Let me assure you, I have great sympathy for young couples starting out now. Not only are costs skyrocketing....a great percentage of them have been brought up to see value in the latest fashions, fancy electronics and flashy cars. I can also assure you I'm not pulling my information out of my a$$.
Maybe it is all the bling bling on the TV and movies? But it seems a lot (not all), of the younger people I work with are all trying to 'represent'. Driving brand new beamers and Lexus, dressing to the latest fashions, and then complaining rent is too high.
I call it "Eminemized". LOL!
Suburban kids pretending they are from South Central LA!
"Eminemized". [img style="CURSOR: pointer" onclick=url(this.src); src="vny!://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/more/bigs/c008.gif" border=0] Excellent !
no kidding devil. I have a friend who has that 'wanting it all' mantra stuck in his head. He's like well "I like it here, I'm not moving" then I ask well what about jobs in what your going into? He says "well there's a shop in nashville, but I don't want to move I love it here". Then he gets the crazy idea that he can open up his own custom shop and gives me a name of some famous person who 'made it'.
He doesn't get it.
SD,
Find a rich wife
I call this "living in cloud 9."
49er wrote:
SD,
Find a rich wife
LOL and I need to find a sugar daddy. ;)
49er wrote:
SD,
Find a rich wife
LOL!!!
I think 49er meant it.
really. Love or Money I take love.
if you are not going to sacrifice and strife but to blame the world for the ills then whats better than the shortcut to owning property than by marrying rich
who said I'm not going to sacrifice to get somewhere. You have to, that's life.
just that you sound defeated before you start
There is no word called defeat in my dictionary.
Its just me working on a little social activism that's all.
Sportsdude wrote:
The only solution is co-ops.
[hr style="width: 100%; height: 2px;"]I wish that it were that simple. Coops are expensive too. Shares tend to start at $1500 and could go upwards of $6000. I don't know how many hours of work you have to put into the coop but it can be difficult when you're out there working all the time. Plus, there's a looooooong waiting list. It could take years until someone gets approved.
If co-ops are the answer, I'd have to ask...What is the question. Do you want to live in a glorified appartement where you get to pay for doing work that normally a landlord would do?
It wouldn't be any kind of a solution for me.
actually its now common to have tenancy-in-common ownership
I meant more co-ops. South False Creek in the 70's they built these cool Co-ops under the federal housing plan from the 70's and 80's. Then the Liberals (federal) cancelled the program and Canada hasn't had a housing plan since, they said 'leave it up to the provinces'. So housing is under provincial control now and the B.C Liberals don't have a plan there idea of housing is high rise condos.
(read this all in my vancouver urban planning book from UBC) :)
Pacific Heights Cooperative start at
2,3 bdrm units units at $859 - $1047 per month
[a href="vny!://www.chf.bc.ca/pages/directory-coop.asp?CoopID=163"]vny!://www.chf.bc.ca/pages/directory-coop.asp?CoopID=163[/a]
Here's the complete list:
[a href="vny!://www.chf.bc.ca/pages/directory.asp"]vny!://www.chf.bc.ca/pages/directory.asp[/a]
Co-ops don't work. Waste of time and money!
Observer wrote:
Co-ops don't work. Waste of time and money!
Agreed! The shares are damn expensive. Who would put thousands of dollars away to a coop with little return? AND you have to spend so many hours attending meetings, voting, and cleaning!!! Yea, rent may be cheap but look at what you have to do for the rent! Who has the money to put down for shares anyways?
So, this is definitely not a solution for me, either.