- This topic has 150 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 3 months ago by
sdrealtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 6, 2011 at 7:34 PM #649681January 6, 2011 at 8:32 PM #648597
Eugene
Participant[quote=SD Transplant]Plust this is a cool chart on housing affordabilty
http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2011/1/6/595019-129429337257722-Leith-van-Onselen_origin.jpg
The entire article has great data/charts
Why is it that everyone always forgets about detached vs. attached?
The only way to get “median multiple” of 6.0 in San Diego, is to divide the median DETACHED price of $360k by the median household income of $60k, even though 40% of San Diego county households (and over 50% of San Diego city households) do not live in detached houses. Cunningham’s 4.2 makes more sense.
Naturally, places with “prescriptive land regulation” (read: limited land) have more apartments/condos and places with lots of land have more detached houses.
On the other hand, it appears that whoever did the chart used the correct metric (detached+attached) at least for some countries. In Dublin (Ireland), median HH income is hard to pin down but seems to be around €50k, median detached+attached price is €240k, and median detached price is upwards of €500k. (That’s after a 50% drop from the peak of the bubble.) In Manchester (UK), median HH income is under £30k, median detached+attached price is £150k, median detached price is £300k.
One big difference between San Diego and Dublin/Manchester is that, in San Diego, there are sufficiently many detached houses that they can be seen (erroneously) as “the” real estate market. In Dublin or Manchester, detached houses are almost nonexistent, account for less than 10% of total real estate.
January 6, 2011 at 8:32 PM #648668Participant[quote=SD Transplant]Plust this is a cool chart on housing affordabilty
http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2011/1/6/595019-129429337257722-Leith-van-Onselen_origin.jpg
The entire article has great data/charts
Why is it that everyone always forgets about detached vs. attached?
The only way to get “median multiple” of 6.0 in San Diego, is to divide the median DETACHED price of $360k by the median household income of $60k, even though 40% of San Diego county households (and over 50% of San Diego city households) do not live in detached houses. Cunningham’s 4.2 makes more sense.
Naturally, places with “prescriptive land regulation” (read: limited land) have more apartments/condos and places with lots of land have more detached houses.
On the other hand, it appears that whoever did the chart used the correct metric (detached+attached) at least for some countries. In Dublin (Ireland), median HH income is hard to pin down but seems to be around €50k, median detached+attached price is €240k, and median detached price is upwards of €500k. (That’s after a 50% drop from the peak of the bubble.) In Manchester (UK), median HH income is under £30k, median detached+attached price is £150k, median detached price is £300k.
One big difference between San Diego and Dublin/Manchester is that, in San Diego, there are sufficiently many detached houses that they can be seen (erroneously) as “the” real estate market. In Dublin or Manchester, detached houses are almost nonexistent, account for less than 10% of total real estate.
January 6, 2011 at 8:32 PM #649254Participant[quote=SD Transplant]Plust this is a cool chart on housing affordabilty
http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2011/1/6/595019-129429337257722-Leith-van-Onselen_origin.jpg
The entire article has great data/charts
Why is it that everyone always forgets about detached vs. attached?
The only way to get “median multiple” of 6.0 in San Diego, is to divide the median DETACHED price of $360k by the median household income of $60k, even though 40% of San Diego county households (and over 50% of San Diego city households) do not live in detached houses. Cunningham’s 4.2 makes more sense.
Naturally, places with “prescriptive land regulation” (read: limited land) have more apartments/condos and places with lots of land have more detached houses.
On the other hand, it appears that whoever did the chart used the correct metric (detached+attached) at least for some countries. In Dublin (Ireland), median HH income is hard to pin down but seems to be around €50k, median detached+attached price is €240k, and median detached price is upwards of €500k. (That’s after a 50% drop from the peak of the bubble.) In Manchester (UK), median HH income is under £30k, median detached+attached price is £150k, median detached price is £300k.
One big difference between San Diego and Dublin/Manchester is that, in San Diego, there are sufficiently many detached houses that they can be seen (erroneously) as “the” real estate market. In Dublin or Manchester, detached houses are almost nonexistent, account for less than 10% of total real estate.
January 6, 2011 at 8:32 PM #649391Participant[quote=SD Transplant]Plust this is a cool chart on housing affordabilty
http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2011/1/6/595019-129429337257722-Leith-van-Onselen_origin.jpg
The entire article has great data/charts
Why is it that everyone always forgets about detached vs. attached?
The only way to get “median multiple” of 6.0 in San Diego, is to divide the median DETACHED price of $360k by the median household income of $60k, even though 40% of San Diego county households (and over 50% of San Diego city households) do not live in detached houses. Cunningham’s 4.2 makes more sense.
Naturally, places with “prescriptive land regulation” (read: limited land) have more apartments/condos and places with lots of land have more detached houses.
On the other hand, it appears that whoever did the chart used the correct metric (detached+attached) at least for some countries. In Dublin (Ireland), median HH income is hard to pin down but seems to be around €50k, median detached+attached price is €240k, and median detached price is upwards of €500k. (That’s after a 50% drop from the peak of the bubble.) In Manchester (UK), median HH income is under £30k, median detached+attached price is £150k, median detached price is £300k.
One big difference between San Diego and Dublin/Manchester is that, in San Diego, there are sufficiently many detached houses that they can be seen (erroneously) as “the” real estate market. In Dublin or Manchester, detached houses are almost nonexistent, account for less than 10% of total real estate.
January 6, 2011 at 8:32 PM #649716Participant[quote=SD Transplant]Plust this is a cool chart on housing affordabilty
http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2011/1/6/595019-129429337257722-Leith-van-Onselen_origin.jpg
The entire article has great data/charts
Why is it that everyone always forgets about detached vs. attached?
The only way to get “median multiple” of 6.0 in San Diego, is to divide the median DETACHED price of $360k by the median household income of $60k, even though 40% of San Diego county households (and over 50% of San Diego city households) do not live in detached houses. Cunningham’s 4.2 makes more sense.
Naturally, places with “prescriptive land regulation” (read: limited land) have more apartments/condos and places with lots of land have more detached houses.
On the other hand, it appears that whoever did the chart used the correct metric (detached+attached) at least for some countries. In Dublin (Ireland), median HH income is hard to pin down but seems to be around €50k, median detached+attached price is €240k, and median detached price is upwards of €500k. (That’s after a 50% drop from the peak of the bubble.) In Manchester (UK), median HH income is under £30k, median detached+attached price is £150k, median detached price is £300k.
One big difference between San Diego and Dublin/Manchester is that, in San Diego, there are sufficiently many detached houses that they can be seen (erroneously) as “the” real estate market. In Dublin or Manchester, detached houses are almost nonexistent, account for less than 10% of total real estate.
January 6, 2011 at 9:22 PM #648617bearishgurl
Participant[quote=Eugene] . . . Naturally, places with “prescriptive land regulation” (read: limited land) have more apartments/condos and places with lots of land have more detached houses. . . [/quote]
Eugene, I think what those charts were referring to by “prescriptive land regulation” was that the most “regulated city in the US,” for example, was San Francisco, CA (and in order of “regulation” on down). In other words, the areas with the most “prescriptive land regulation” were those areas with strict zoning laws and the most city ordinances and land-use regulations to navigate (in order to build/remodel).
January 6, 2011 at 9:22 PM #648688Participant[quote=Eugene] . . . Naturally, places with “prescriptive land regulation” (read: limited land) have more apartments/condos and places with lots of land have more detached houses. . . [/quote]
Eugene, I think what those charts were referring to by “prescriptive land regulation” was that the most “regulated city in the US,” for example, was San Francisco, CA (and in order of “regulation” on down). In other words, the areas with the most “prescriptive land regulation” were those areas with strict zoning laws and the most city ordinances and land-use regulations to navigate (in order to build/remodel).
January 6, 2011 at 9:22 PM #649274Participant[quote=Eugene] . . . Naturally, places with “prescriptive land regulation” (read: limited land) have more apartments/condos and places with lots of land have more detached houses. . . [/quote]
Eugene, I think what those charts were referring to by “prescriptive land regulation” was that the most “regulated city in the US,” for example, was San Francisco, CA (and in order of “regulation” on down). In other words, the areas with the most “prescriptive land regulation” were those areas with strict zoning laws and the most city ordinances and land-use regulations to navigate (in order to build/remodel).
January 6, 2011 at 9:22 PM #649411Participant[quote=Eugene] . . . Naturally, places with “prescriptive land regulation” (read: limited land) have more apartments/condos and places with lots of land have more detached houses. . . [/quote]
Eugene, I think what those charts were referring to by “prescriptive land regulation” was that the most “regulated city in the US,” for example, was San Francisco, CA (and in order of “regulation” on down). In other words, the areas with the most “prescriptive land regulation” were those areas with strict zoning laws and the most city ordinances and land-use regulations to navigate (in order to build/remodel).
January 6, 2011 at 9:22 PM #649736Participant[quote=Eugene] . . . Naturally, places with “prescriptive land regulation” (read: limited land) have more apartments/condos and places with lots of land have more detached houses. . . [/quote]
Eugene, I think what those charts were referring to by “prescriptive land regulation” was that the most “regulated city in the US,” for example, was San Francisco, CA (and in order of “regulation” on down). In other words, the areas with the most “prescriptive land regulation” were those areas with strict zoning laws and the most city ordinances and land-use regulations to navigate (in order to build/remodel).
January 6, 2011 at 11:11 PM #648632CA renter
Participant[quote=Rich Toscano]I would be very surprised if we ever hit the peak in INCOME-adjusted terms again. Just think how ridiculously expensive homes got compared to incomes, and what it took (lending wise) to get them there… why would that happen again?
Inflation adjusted is a little different since incomes can rise faster than inflation. But still. That’s a long way off, if ever.
I certainly don’t consider it “pessimistic” to say that we will never hit the inflation adjusted high. That was a terrible affair, in which homes were totally unaffordable and people had to take on huge debt just to buy a place to live. It seemed fun because people were profiting off the rise from expensive to really expensive… but hugely expensive housing is certainly not a desirable outcome.[/quote]
So very well said, Rich. Thank you.
January 6, 2011 at 11:11 PM #648703Participant[quote=Rich Toscano]I would be very surprised if we ever hit the peak in INCOME-adjusted terms again. Just think how ridiculously expensive homes got compared to incomes, and what it took (lending wise) to get them there… why would that happen again?
Inflation adjusted is a little different since incomes can rise faster than inflation. But still. That’s a long way off, if ever.
I certainly don’t consider it “pessimistic” to say that we will never hit the inflation adjusted high. That was a terrible affair, in which homes were totally unaffordable and people had to take on huge debt just to buy a place to live. It seemed fun because people were profiting off the rise from expensive to really expensive… but hugely expensive housing is certainly not a desirable outcome.[/quote]
So very well said, Rich. Thank you.
January 6, 2011 at 11:11 PM #649289Participant[quote=Rich Toscano]I would be very surprised if we ever hit the peak in INCOME-adjusted terms again. Just think how ridiculously expensive homes got compared to incomes, and what it took (lending wise) to get them there… why would that happen again?
Inflation adjusted is a little different since incomes can rise faster than inflation. But still. That’s a long way off, if ever.
I certainly don’t consider it “pessimistic” to say that we will never hit the inflation adjusted high. That was a terrible affair, in which homes were totally unaffordable and people had to take on huge debt just to buy a place to live. It seemed fun because people were profiting off the rise from expensive to really expensive… but hugely expensive housing is certainly not a desirable outcome.[/quote]
So very well said, Rich. Thank you.
January 6, 2011 at 11:11 PM #649426Participant[quote=Rich Toscano]I would be very surprised if we ever hit the peak in INCOME-adjusted terms again. Just think how ridiculously expensive homes got compared to incomes, and what it took (lending wise) to get them there… why would that happen again?
Inflation adjusted is a little different since incomes can rise faster than inflation. But still. That’s a long way off, if ever.
I certainly don’t consider it “pessimistic” to say that we will never hit the inflation adjusted high. That was a terrible affair, in which homes were totally unaffordable and people had to take on huge debt just to buy a place to live. It seemed fun because people were profiting off the rise from expensive to really expensive… but hugely expensive housing is certainly not a desirable outcome.[/quote]
So very well said, Rich. Thank you.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.