Where Will Be The Best Places To Buy?
Readers suggested a topic on desirable places to live. “When all this settles out, taking energy costs, global warming, quality of life (crime, schools, health care, culture, etc), availability of jobs, costs (purchase, insurance, taxes etc) into account, where will the best places in the US be to buy a home in the coming 3-5 years?”
A reply, “Economcially viable, transit-oriented urban areas with large and diverse job markets, reasonably funded public employee pension plans and uncorrupt state and local governments. New York fails on the last two counts.”
One responded, “I think you just excluded the entire USA!”
Another added, “What other cities have transit plans? Chicago? The pension plan is a total disaster? SF? One-fourth the size of Chicago, and the same budget size? Can we say “corrupt”? LA? No public transportation. Boston? No jobs. One-fifth of the population is now students. What’s left?”
One from out west, “Los Angeles does have mass transit. It doesn’t serve every part of the megalopolis, but for those homes lucky enough to be along the subway, light rail, and major bus lines, it’s provided a drastic relative increase in real estate values.”
“Given that energy costs will likely remain high, housing in mild coastal climates will, after adjustment, be in high demand. Otherwise, I’m afraid the template is Meerkat Manor…”
And another, “You wouldn’t know that LA has a subway system unless you lived near one of the few stops. I have only ever seen one of them, and only then because I happened to go to the building in Hollywood where it is located. LA’s subways don’t go much of anywhere useful - for example, one of the above-ground sections runs almost to the airport but stops a few miles short.”
“LA does have a ton of buses, but they suffer from the same problems that cars do - the ludicrous traffic. So while LA can claim to have mass transit, it’s not of much use to most people who live here.”
To which was posted, “That seems to confirm what the opponents of rail were saying - that the place was just too spread out for it to be practical. That’s why I was so surprised to see it making inroads. London is spread out too but they have trains in every direction.”
From the SF Bay Area. “When I lived in LA I took the train for a year from Newhall to Pasadena. A 45 minute trip took 2 hours ONE way! I saved money, but it took forever!! I had to take 2 trains to get there and go through downtown to get to Pasadena. VERY Ridiculous! I now ride BART straight to work from Walnut Creek. It takes me 45 minutes to get to work on only ONE train!! MUCH, MUCH better!! I love San Francisco! You can have LA with their horrible traffic and metro system. It’s AWFUL!! I really hate LA! Would NEVER go back!”
One exchange, “What do you imagine a 8.0 shocker would do to the city of angles underground? That’s one of the reasons that the LA Metro is one of the most expensive underground rail systems in the world - IIRC it costs several million per yard for the seismic safeguards, on top of construction costs.”
“Another reason the LA Metro system sucks - two really - is NIMBYism and special interests.”
“There’s no link to the Westside (wha?) because lots of people in places like Beverly Hills don’t want a station in their ‘hood.’ Too many people from East L.A and other ‘undesirable’ places, not to mention the homeless might, just might, decide to alight in BH, thereby lowering the tone of the place.
Plus, all that filled ditch construction would make the place look messy…”
“Word is, plans are afoot to finally extend it to places west - where people would actually use it, but its a long battle to get permission from some of the cities on the way. Also - talk about shooting yourself in the foot - one of the lines goes from Downtown to Long Beach, and conveniently misses LAX.”
“Why? Because, when they were planning the line - and the obvious link to the airport (for all those people who weren’t planning to drive to there) the Taxi drivers lobbied long and hard to stop it. They were worried about loss of income, because if people could actually get to LAX without using a taxi, then their business would go down.”
“Which is probably true to some extent - but the needs of the few overcame the needs of the many in this case. So - you get the ba$tard child of compromise - the line takes you to a bus station, where you have to disembark, wait for a shuttle, re-embark, which then takes you into LAX. Which, obviously, puts a lot of people off trying to do it. Almost every other major city in the world has mass transit to the airport, except for L.A”
“Unfortunately, special interests have hamstrung what could have been a halfway decent system, into something that almost no one uses, because the trains don’t go to where people need them to.”
One with an alternative, “L.A. is good if you live close enough to your work to bike it. The terrain is flat and weather is usually good. The traffic for cars suck, but bike riders are immune to traffic jams.”
One looks ahead, “I’m curious what will happen to the US urban landscape over the next two decades. Will our cities devolve back into ’70s-style chaos, replete with diminished services, higher crime and decaying infrastructure? Will the escalating price of oil put a damper on flight away from urban cores, as the population readjusts to higher density living with less reliance on the automobile?”
“Could we actually see a resurgence of rural and (non-factory) farm life? Will rising commodity prices finally force us back into regional food consumption, instead of moving products willy-nilly all over the country?”
One added, “I think you need to add ‘consistent future water supply’ to the mix.”
A post on North Carolina, “Eastern NC within Cape Carteret County might be good
lots of 50’s yankees w no kids to go to school.”
One looks to the heartland, “Great Lakes states will be the best bets (leaving out Chicago, whose river already flows the wrong way). How come?”
“Low costs of housing now. Fresh water. Unlike the south, the southwest, California, the Great Plains, the Rocky Mountains. Crops. Crops grow from rain water, not from the aquifer or huge subsidized public works projects, such as Florida or California. Crops not dependent upon irrigation such as the Great Plains. (See water, above).”
“Cheap houses, food, and water, something the rest of the country will be begging for in four years. Energy? Local natural gas for heating. Coal for generating electricity. Schools? Head for the burbs, away from the big city. Culture? Second or third tier museums. But world class medical (Mayo, Cleveland Clinic).”
“And when wages drop and raw materials rise, and it becomes economical to manufacture in the US again: Dust off the old mills and plants. Ocean transport? Been happening for decades from the major great lakes ports.”
“Weather? Ha ha, you’re eating, you’re working, you got water, you’re warm and sheltered. Deal with it.”
“There’s a reason the Great Lakes states grew up like they did well into the 20th century. The real bubble is in the southwest, west coast, florida… only those are slow-moving bubbles lasting several decades. The tide will return to the great lakes.”
Of the three places Ben is visiting this weekend, I recommend San Diego or San Francisco
I have never lived in LA, but have known (or been related) to a number of folks who live there. The simple story is that LA is a place with vast employment and cultural opportunities, but the traffic makes it almost unlivable.
So right Bear. LA folks all say there’s so much to do there, but then they don’t do much of it because it’s so difficult to get anywhere. If you have friends or family that live cross town, you rarely see them because driving for 2 hours each way doesn’t make for a pleasant dinner. We would end up just inviting people to come spend the weekend. Used to take 1 hour each way to drive 17 miles from south bay to UCLA for work. Just craziness.
Bear and Crazy, exactly right. It’s one the main reasons I left LA after living there much of my life. I love the Hollywood Bowl, love going to Dodger games, but coming from the West side, the traffic was stultifyingly bad. If you have friends in Hollywood or Silverlake, they might as well live in Phoenix, because it’s probably as easy to hop on a plane and visit them there. Speaking of UCLA, there was one night I had to get there from the Palisades (a 12 minute drive with zero traffic) and it took me an hour and a half. It absolutely kills the city.
We were working with a customer back in 2001. The customer was in Redlands. We were staying in Burbank. We had to meet with several customers in the area so Burbank was central and our office was there. It took us three hours to get back from Redlands to Burbank. It could drive a grown Boy to tears. No thank you!
NYCBoy, would you believe that traffic has gotten significantly worse since 2001?
Wow. I am not an L.A. fan just for this very fact. In 2002 I stayed in Santa Monica for work. We had to drive all over and it was awful. I think people with long commutes are just throwing their lives away. I will never do that.
“There’s no link to the Westside (wha?) because lots of people in places like Beverly Hills don’t want a station in their ‘hood…Plus, all that filled ditch construction would make the place look messy…”
they have talked forever about the ’subway to the sea’ from dwtn to Santa Monica, which would most likely go along wilshire blvd. Problem is constuction of it would lead to horrible traffic tieups in the westside , which already has horrible traffic tieups as it is. Plus it is very expensive real estate thru that section with lots of hi-end retailers and shops. It would be the most expensive metro construction project in the world. Too many vested high rollers in bev hills amd cent city would put roadblocks- the nimby factor. They do not want easier access into their pricy hoods -traffic entanglements are already bad as it is on the westside.
“Also - talk about shooting yourself in the foot - one of the lines goes from Downtown to Long Beach, and conveniently misses LAX.”
U take the blue line from dwtn to long beach but get a transfer to the green line in lynwood or s gate ,probably at imperial station(ghettoish area to do the tranfer BTW, though most LA metro stations are pretty safe & clean overall-just don’t miss a connection late in afternoon or evening and be stranded in lynwood!!)
Then take green line west to near it’s terminous at LAX. Then hop off green line and hop onto Lax shuttle bus which tales you the remaining 1/2 mile into lax.
Yes it sucks that there is no direct metro train line into lAX. It would make touring from LAX into other parts of LA much easier. BTW doing the blue line from dwtn LA into long beach dwtn it is 45 minites and dwtn LB does have an attactive shoreline harborwalk funzone well worth spending one or two days- all to do queen mary, aquarium of pacific, shoreline village, pike amusement zone or take innumerable variety of harbor boast cruises.
All can be taken in a day with extreme tight planning as LB lacks cheap dwtm accommodations except some flophouse hostels in seedy areas out of dwtn .
Traffic is much worse in LA and environs, because there has been so much condominium development on the westside. Back in the day (1970s) almost all of WLA, Santa Monica, Culver City, basically the whole west side were neighborhoods with SFH- modest SFH on 5Kish lots. I remember Venice and Marina Del Rey before they condopopulated. Funny thing is, back in the day there were alot more people at the beach. Now everyone is going somewhere and the beaches are empty except for holiday nightmare weekends.
The only way to be happy is to avoid commuting as much as possible. Hahaha.
I agree with the traffic comments. Crime and traffic are the two big reasons I’m glad to no longer live in the Los Angeles area. When a 3 or 4 hour outing can easily become 6 or 8 hours, it’s just not worth it.
All of those attractions aren’t worth much if you don’t go to them or don’t enjoy them once you get there because of the traffic hassles. The traffic just wears on you, day after day, year after year. Your background stress level instantly drops once you leave the area because of no longer having to deal with the traffic.
I totally agree…crime and traffic is a big minus living in L.A.
The housing market is terrible plus the city/state wants to TAX us more and more. L.A. is the land of the SUVs and with gas prices going through the roof — another big minus living in a city that has so much to do, but you can’t do because you can no longer afford it. L.A. is fast becoming a very poor city with a 3rd world culture. I’m retiring early in two years and planning to move out and I’m not going to miss this city.
The growing black-on-Mexican racial tensions don’t bode well for LA’s future, either.
I was disappointed by the San Diego bubbling. To me, an infrequent visitor, it has very nice aesthetics. I hope the over-building they did doesn’t lead to decay with a lot of abandoned homes, welfare people being warehoused there, and crack dens.
I wish the opposite. If it gets really bad, normal ppl can move back into decent homes for less than 300k and rebuild the communities. Most great areas follow the same trend, decay - but great existing architecture or location, counter culture moving in, trendies follow, then yuppies. Without a huge downturn, the young, artistic and creative ppl are gone, which is generally the sign that its time for the cyle to rebegin. I welcome the mix.
“I was disappointed by the San Diego bubbling. To me, an infrequent visitor, it has very nice aesthetics. I hope the over-building they did doesn’t lead to decay with a lot of abandoned homes, welfare people being warehoused there, and crack dens.”
While there was more sprawl-type development during the bubble, there was also quite a lot of centrally-located higher density housing development as well. The problem in the near term is that little of this new housing was affordable to anyone except those with incomes well above the median, less than 10 percent of the population. However the added supply will eventually make the cost of housing cheaper for all, whether renters or owners.
The city of San Diego is a fiscal disaster and the county somewhat less so. There have been steady and ongoing improvements in transportation, both highways and mass transit. In spite of some significant challenges over the next decade, much of the bubble era development may prove more of a plus than a minus. Notable exceptions will be those developments that were poorly constructed and many of the condo conversions.
It’s OK, Pedro and his brothers will fill up all the empty homes. three or more families per. Just put a sign up on the border! hehehehehehe
San Diego is bankrupt due to unfunded pension giveaways. San Francisco’s housing bubble is the second slowest to deflate behind NYC, and there is the matter earthquakes.
The bankruptcy to which WT Economist alluded has made San Diego the financial laughingstock of the nation. The Wall Street Journal has aptly named SD “Enron-by-the-Sea”. San Diego is still locked out of the muncipal bond markets, and so cannot fix its streets, and has among the lowest per capita expenditures for firefighting.
That lack of proper spending for firefighting is no small problem here in San Diego, what with the crippling Cedar fire in 2004, and the Witch Fire of October 2007. The Witch Fire of October 2007 led to the evacuation of over 500,000, largely because the conflagration extended over much of S.D. County. Another day or two of strong Santa Ana winds, and there wouldn’t have been much left.
Not to mention that we’re in the middle of a 100-year drought, with mandatory water rationing on the way.
If I wasn’t a life-long resident, not sure I would want to plunk down a substantial chunk of change on housing that its politicians treat so badly.
Plus, San Diego is among the U.S. cities with the highest prices for gasoline.
When is someone going to investigate CalPers? They were giving loans out to subprime builders in Mexico, India,and Condos in Sac…wonder what’s happening to all those brilliant developments? The COO bailed out last months 2 weeks after that story where they were going to default on a billion $ LA land deal. Read yesterday they only post their true numbers each July so should be interesting next month when their Bear Stearns,and subprime involvement show up.
The reason LA, San Diego, and other similar large cities have such awful public transport is poor public policy. SF got B.A.R.T very early after WWII because of its forward thinking politicians (many of whom would be labeled “commies” by the usual political troglodytes).
Politicos in other CA locales either had their political hands tied by left and right wing NIMBYs, therefore public infrastructure was underfunded by tax giveaways, misspent taxes, misplaced priorities, or a general snobbiness associated with the newly wealthy towards public projects in general or mass transit in particular. I grew up in the OC, and there were always arguments how mass transit would “bring in the wrong people”.
Right wingers wanted tax receipts reduced to “stimulate the economy”, and subsequently they were blown on our consumptive lifestyles, i.e. keeping up with the Joneses, rapacious CEOs and their Swiss bank accounts and otherwise frittered away on the many Ponzi schemes that have become such a huge and overinflated part of our economy.
The days of affordable public works projects has long passed. If we’re lucky, the next economic downturn will be so severe that instead of sending out Walmart rebates, the gov’t will distribute the tax burden more fairly and fund public works projects <gasp!!) just like FDR did to reduce unemployment cheaply build infrastructure like subways or energy plants.
The left-wingers suck because they will see public works projects as a threat to union jobs, because of eminent domain, and because of the view that any construction-related accidents will bankrupt the project due to multi-million “lottery type” lawsuits from ambulance chasers.
Another obstacle: These projects will rely on ethical public servants who can resist the temptation to allow their buddies to get contracts while supplying substandard materials that will lead to even more problems later (like the Big Dig).
“I have never lived in LA, but have known (or been related) to a number of folks who live there. The simple story is that LA is a place with vast employment and cultural opportunities, but the traffic makes it almost unlivable”
I will provide some insights into LA as i am almost a native here.
La does have some cultural sights worth visiting but they are spread out in widely spaced out locales separated by 10-30 miles of horrible tangled traffic and often slumified ghettos.
To give some examples- Getty Museum is off 405 in middle of sepulveda pass away from everything. Huntingtom library & art gallery is in some part of Pasadena no one knows about. LA History/science museum and exposition park are located adjacent to USC campus and both are about 1 mile south of dwtn(shoot sttraight down figuroa St) but surrounded by ghettos and not pleasant to take transit there at all.
Universial studios is well worth visiting and is good for adults and kids but public transist there is complex and tangled. Very bad traffic problems in that area off the 101 .Nearby Hollywood blvd can be reached by taking red line out of dwtn and ending up at Sunset and Gower about 1 mile east of the main hollywood walkable area with the walk of fame, kodak theater, graumens chinese, ect. Not pleasant to walk at all in heat of summer and areas off hollywood can be seedy in spots.
Santa Monica & Venice beaches are worth visiting but no metro lines go there. Only the Santa Monica blue bus line with connections to dwtn .
The LA subway discussion was good.
In San Jose the Caltrain and the light rail also stops several miles from the airport, now that probably explains. Actually in north America SF is probably the only city with a rail system connected to its airport. (Mineapolis and Dallas/Fort Worth have airport light rail, but I doubt they have rail outside of the airports.) In the world it would be very few as well)
I am not sure whether the seismic danger about subway has been investigated, but that might explain why there is almost no subway system in the west coast.
“Actually in north America SF is probably the only city with a rail system connected to its airport. (Mineapolis and Dallas/Fort Worth have airport light rail, but I doubt they have rail outside of the airports.)”
Add to SF, Chicago (Midway and O’Hare), DC (Reagan National), Baltimore with light rail, Atlanta, Newark, NYC, and Philadelphia. Rail connections to the airport are now common.
Baltimore: Stood there, at that BWI station, on a saturday, and waited much more than an hour, for a train into DC. Had looked at the weekday schedule, and the weekend schedule sucks big time.
Also Boston’s Logan is close enough (you get on a shuttle bus at the airport to get to other terminals and one of the stops is the T.)
Silly me.
Next time should consider the subway system when traveling.
BART almost didn’t make it to SF Airport. There were people that wanted it stopped at Millbrae. The plan was for a bus to take people over to SFO, just like they do in Oakland. That option was shot down and BART now goes directly to SFO.
That’s because Senator Quentin Kopp made sure it would go into SFO.
I don’t argue with the rationality of doing so, but the relative number of passengers, as compared to an extension elsewhere within SF or to San Jose, is low… unfortunately.
On the BART maps inside trains, there’s a notation that an extension into OAK airport is planned - probably long after we are all dead.
Sorry, the cabbie union won’t allow public transport to go directly to the airport
I’m a little confused by your post doug. Are you saying Oakland or SFO?
BART goes directly to SFO.
A lot of cabbies unions oppose the extension of rail lines to airports on grounds that they will lose money. Classic special interest lobby opposed to the public good.
DFW just implemented a $3 billion people move so you can get around the airport in 15 minutes or less (DFW is as big as Manhattan). They purposely decided not to run it to the commuter rail that is 1 mile south of the airport that currently connect Dallas and Fort Worth. They instead run free buses every hour or so(I have not been able to figure out the schedule). There is a rail line being built on the north side of the airport that will not connect the airport to North Dallas as well..
Two years ago parking revenue started falling so the airport increased prices and started charging to drop off/pick up people. DFW is the only airport I am aware of that you cannot drop a passenger off for free.
From what I understand, the city of Dallas refuses to run light rail into Love Field as well.
DFW is the only airport I am aware of that you cannot drop a passenger off for free.
Kingsford-Smith airport in Sydney, Australia also charges for this. Thank privatisation.
Wisconsin…
Will trade a bunch of rainwater for a propeller
aye?
Denver.
RTD = rail and buses.
TABOR = low taxes of all kinds.
SCFD = taxes to support arts
Weather = almost perfect.
Jobs = many.
taxes for peoples art ?
is that WPA or what
otherwise ok……..
Art is a public good. Simply stated, if there are no taxes to support art, there will be very little new art produced (at least of the sort favored by the cultural elite).
Why must some working stiff be forced (if he doesn’t pay, men with guns will come and violently take his property from him) to pay the salary of someone who produces something that no one would otherwise pay him for? That does not seem to be public good.
Well when you say it like THAT……
When you say it like that it covers 70% of government (all levels) administrative employees.
The SCFD is supported by a 1/10% sales tax.
Not like the WPA, but it “provides funding to nonprofit organizations and divisions of government that meet the statutory criteria for eligibility. By Colorado law, the organization’s primary purpose is to “provide for the enlightenment and entertainment of the public through the production, presentation, exhibition, advancement or preservation of art, music, theater, dance, zoology, botany, natural history or cultural history.”"
“Voters reaffirmed their support of the SCFD tax in 1994, and most recently, voters extended their support of culture by approving the SCFD legislation in November 2004 with 65% voter approval. SCFD will now sunset (or expire) on June 30, 2018.”
See http://www.scfd.org
I live in Denver. The City is cool, as well as the mountains. The suburbs are truly dismal, however. Worst architecture I’ve ever seen. Not even stucco McMansions. They dont use real stucco here. Synthetic stucco cht boxes with no trees on 5k sq foot lots.
The last time I stayed in Denver I noticed the lack of trees. That was an odd sight. Overall Denver seems nice but people drive like nuts. We were doing 95 and getting passed from Louisville back to Denver.
Once you get out of the mountains, the only trees are the ones ppl planted and watered. It was a true shocker for me as I am from the East Coast which was all dense natural forest. Coming in by plane you see nothing but bare brown dirt as far as the eye can see. The lots are small enough, but with no mature tree buffer, it is really disturbing. In many suburbs you get to sit on your porch looking at 100 identical crappy homes.
The funny part is that developers always advertise “wall of windows.” They usually look right into your neighbor’s wall of windows, so blinds must be shut at all times. Common sense is now an after thought.
Denver has almost perfect weather? All in one’s perspective, of coure, but I’d put it in the bottom 25% of major U.S. cities. It’s cold, dry, and windy. Trees clearly aren’t fond of the weather, either, since they don’t naturally grow there.
Bottom 25%? Guess that depends on how you feel about humidity. For people who don’t like humidity in all it’s drippy, itchy, stinky, moldy, or freezin’-your-butt-off-in-the-winter forms, Denver is definitely in the top 25%. The flip side of course is that you can’t grow much food unless you have access to water.
Denver is now majority-Hispanic. Crime & suburban blight are become serious problems.
This description covers a large portion of the USA today.
Not true.
“Among residents of Denver, 31.7% were Hispanic or Latino in 2000. Of over 95,213 Asians (2.2%), up from 60,000 in 1990, 11,571 were Japanese (down from 15,198 in 1990); 16,395 Korean (up from 12,490 in 1990); 15,457 Vietnamese (more than double the 1990 total of 6,679); 15,658 Chinese (up from 9,117 in 1990); and 8,941 Filipino. The population of Pacific Islanders was estimated at 4,621 in 2000. In all, 369,903 residents, or 8.6% of the state population, were foreign born in 2000.”
http://www.city-data.com/states/Colorado-Ethnic-groups.html
stop confusing us with facts, dave.
A small community with kind and skilled people. A train and a river and good ag land.
It exists, lots of such places, actually.
You need a town with at least 25,000 people to
support an infrastructure of manufacturering, hospitals, and local commerce, coupled with
easy access to transportation, specifically train
and water. It should also have good farmland/ranchland for local market consumption.
Actually sounds like Missoula, with our Viet & Hmoung farmers in the Bitterroot. But it’s too cold here, you all wouldn’t like it..
I think you’re right, Montana/No Idaho, maybe parts of No. Washington State are the only places out west where the shortage of water doesn’t prohibit a more agrarian way of life for average citizens. Even up there’ I’m not sure it’s affordable, and the seasons are quite short without a lot of greenhouse gardening involved.
Cold weather keeps the riff-raff out. There’s also a reason why “ice people” - Scandanavians - tend to be the least corrupt and most cooperative and neighborly people on the planet. Looking out for the general welfare is in their DNA.
Like the Japanese, having smaller disparities in income distribution and a more homogenous society which is devoid of discrimination are the real reasons, not “DNA”.
But don’t let that get in the way of a good eugenics theory.
Depends on what you define as riff-raff. Why do you think Mark Fuhrman moved to Sandpoint? Cuz it’s pretty? Or cuz it’s pretty white?
“Cold weather keeps the riff-raff out. There’s also a reason why “ice people” - Scandanavians - tend to be the least corrupt and most cooperative and neighborly people on the planet. Looking out for the general welfare is in their DNA.”
And Sammy, Russians fit into your analysis how? It’s cold - doesn’t stop the cops from regularly demanding bribes…
NoSingleOne,
Actually discrimination and racism is rampant here in Japan. In fact Japan has a caste system here as well and it’s regularly discriminated against, though it’s hard to tell if you are not Japanese.
The Japanese discriminates regularly on non Japanese people here all the time, just ask Japanese born Korean and Chinese. (I’m not Japanese but my wife is)
They also practice age and sexual discrimination as well. …..
Tokyo -
What you’re saying is pretty much what I’ve always heard to be the case. I guess some people can’t let the facts get in the way of some good Amerikkka bashing though…
I stand corrected…Japan has discrimination, but I bet so does Scandinavia (as do most countries with “royalty”). I have a hard time believing that Scandinavians are genetically predisposed to be nice.
I’m sure the coastal villages pillaged by Vikings would have disagreed.
I’d say it sounds like Havre- there’s no trains in Missoula. A little short on population maybe, but unemployment is low and there’s a real hospital.
No valley smog up here either.
Food, water, transportation, reliable and skilled labor markets are but the end result.
You also need a less litigious culture, good health care, good education, diversified economy, and good community relationships to have the right ingredients to achieve the above.
The bubble may have changed an individual’s perspective, but i don’t see how the bubble’s creation or it’s collapse has changed anything otherwise.
Areas that were considered most desireable pre-bubble gained that reputation for good reason and will retain it.
“The bubble may have changed an individual’s perspective, but i don’t see how the bubble’s creation or it’s collapse has changed anything otherwise. Areas that were considered most desireable pre-bubble gained that reputation for good reason and will retain it.”
If the bubble were the only significant factor that might be true. However, energy, global climate change, and changes in the U.S. economy both internally and with respect to the rest of the world may all exert significant influences on housing in the future.
I expect we’ll see shifts in the relative value of housing in the future, both in location and type due to the above factors. Given the complexity and uncertainty of those above factors and especially the human response to those factors, getting even the broad changes right has quite a lot of uncertainty. It may prove easier to guide those changes than to forecast them.
All that said, Kunstler’s “Long Emergency” does present what some would consider one of the more extreme scenarios of what could happen when you account for all of these factors. It is thought-provoking, even if it turns out to be wrong in many of the details.
i understand and i agree.. it seems like the overall desirability of a location might be justifiably different due to the factors you mentioned.. but i just cant think of an example.
I’m a huge Kunstler fan, but I don’t see how he arrives at the “long” part. I don’t know how America will unwind over a prolonged period.
If you lived in the Tampa Bay Area, and this is my bias, you would agree. I think it was the Polk County Sheriff that said, “we’re always on the brink of anarchy” or something like that. To me that’s a Florida perspective. I mean, we’re practically there already.
To the original post, I would/will return to my native upstate NY, most likely the Finger Lakes. If we are going to return to posse-patrolled agrarianism, I’d prefer to die of my musket wounds there.
I will also add that I know Kunstler reads this. He must likely does not post for professional reasons and time constraints, but I really wish he would chime in. If he believes we are at the onset of dire consequences for “the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of mankind,” he should endeavor to transform his role from observer to leader. Really.
One of his recent suggestions is that the next president should use emergency federal powers to shut down NASCAR. If you look at the current geopolitical situation, it’s a REAL solution, not lip service. Funny because it’s true.
“One of his recent suggestions is that the next president should use emergency federal powers to shut down NASCAR.”
Utter classism. Ban private jets - let Al Gore, Laurie David, Bill Gates, and Brad Pitt fly commercial…
Ban all houses over 5,000 square feet and second homes. Let’s see how the Masters like that. I would take the NASCAR crowd over the Hamptons crowd any day.
“One of his recent suggestions is that the next president should use emergency federal powers to shut down NASCAR.”
Some of his suggestions are most probably in jest. NASCAR will survive or fail on its own merits and based on changing circumstances. It’s not going to be shut down by a president.
However, circumstances for professional sports franchises could be much more challenging in the decades ahead. How many fiscally-strapped cities/counties/states are going to be willing to continue to subsidize their facilities? How much will their transportation costs increase as the cost of flying becomes much more expensive? Will the income from their media contracts drop as add revenue falls? In addition to “peak oil” and “peak travel”, have we also reached “peak sports” with regard to many of the professional sports?
I would take the artsy-fartsy granola crowd over the NASCAR or the Hampton crowd.
I’ll take dogs over any of the above.
A friend of mine used to own a Busch series car & a Craftsman series truck. I went to the races with him when they were running in Atlanta. I didn’t see any poor folks there–but saw lots of nouveau riche with their million dollar buses. I guess it could be different up in the stands, but down in the infield the only obnoxious redneck I ever crossed paths with was Kyle Petty.
For some reason, I have always gotten along with the Hamptons types. I think I must have some invisible sign on my forehead that says “Not impressed by wealth or fame” that makes them want to suck up to me.
The crowd I can’t seem to get along with is the suburban Idol watcher group. They are too beyond boring. Maybe we could outlaw them.
The Army and Marines put a lot of effort and funds into recruiting at NASCAR events for a good reason: The good ole boys may be uncouth and blue collar, but they’re generally very patriotic and make some of the best trigger-pullers in Uncle Sam’s military.
Schadenfreude, where do you get the information in your posts? You don’t seem to care much about backing up your assertions in many of your posts.
The NASCAR crowd isn’t any more patriotic than any other demographic. By your measure, young African Americans are proportionately the most patriotic group in the country.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/demographics.htm
“i understand and i agree.. it seems like the overall desirability of a location might be justifiably different due to the factors you mentioned.. but i just cant think of an example.”
If I were to make a couple of guesses, I would think that port cities would do relatively better and exurbs relatively worse. With the port cities, the port aspect may go back to being more important than the waterfront aspect. With the exurbs, non-housing factors that may be increasingly important in the future may be disproportionately negative for the exurbs, more so than for many other types of locations.
ok .. speaking of general area desirability shifts, here’s one: The masses of boomers retiring to places that do not require jobs or a lot of other popular ammenities and entertainments..
All retirees need is peace and quiet.. minimal commercial activity such as hospital, restaurant, auto-repair and basic transportation.. mild weather.
The neo-exurbs pretty much fit the bill. The cost of buying out there will be very low due to bubble collapse / foreclosures and ultimately low property values.
So, maybe financing a small hospital or clinic in some god-foresaken disaster of a abandoned housing tract out in the middle of nowhere would be a good investment risk. Someone here did mention the highest and best use of these places might end up being retirement communities.. i forget who.
You’ve just described Lincoln, Nebraska. I couldn’t believe the number of clinics littering the scenery….
“When Americans hit the road it’s usually for “sun and fun” or “bright lights, big city.” But in the years after 9-11, Americans have also hungered for a slice of security and normalcy. A chance to get off the beaten path, away from it all to someplace quieter, older, less hectic.”
“The towns here are rarely destinations themselves, just a beautiful spot on the way from someplace to someplace else. Some, like Fredericksburg, are good for a stay. Others are just a stop for lunch and a promise to come back another day.”
“If you’re taking a road trip this summer, wondering whether to take an exit or go on to another, maybe one of these places will give you a reason to stop.”
Well! I happen to live in “The Best Place on Earth”. It even says so on our British Columbia licence plates. So there.
That place is pretty dope, as my friends would say.
Mass Transit, even in places like the Bay Area, is a joke. As oil prices surge past $200 and $300 per barrel in the next two or three years, mass transit will be overwhelmed and there will be no way to expand systems because of raw material costs.
If you ask me, a place like Japan will be best. Japan is a place where
a) the population has been using mass transit for commuting to/from work from the beginning (never had a tradition of commuting by car)
b) the infrastructure is already in place; not just train lines but also bicycle storage facilities at all key areas.
c) there is a declining population.
d) It’s an island nation with more or less closed borders.
But I am married to a Japanese woman and my children have Japanese passports, so maybe I’m a little biased. I did love the fact that I didn’t need a car when I lived there and that I could use public transportation to access the vast majority of the mountain hiking trails. By not having a car, I was able to save money like a fiend every month. In fact, transportation costs for the average Tokyo or Osaka resident probably haven’t budged much in the past two years, except for their one or two international trips per year.
Going this fall to ride the rails there again. Yes, one can get everywhere by train and despite the preconceptions of many, my experience has been that it makes for a very low stress holiday and better quality of life overall.
Sadly we will never see that level of investment in our cities. Everyone will have granite, stainless, and plasma - the true hallmarks of prosperity. Nevermind mobility, who needs get around when everyone has such bitchin’ condos?
Nevermind mobility, who needs get around when everyone has such bitchin’ condos?”
That’s why obesity and depression rates are increasing as well.
My post disappeared. To everyone: go to Tokyo and ride the Shinkansen. The most incredible thing: it runs every ten minutes or so, on the busy stretches. Loads / unloads in one minute. Cars level with platform, wheel your suitcase right in. Faster than German ICE. Like clockwork. After that, the experience of dirty stations / unfriendliness in Europe leave me in a bad mood these days.
Plus: as a single female, I stayed in a hotel near the station in Tokyo. Scary? Hell, no!
As much as my random bits about Japan being lousy and having a lot of problems. This is one thing I will never ever complain about in regards to Japan.
Japan’s public transportation system is probably the best in the world. I commute and use three different train systems (Bayshore subway (Rinkai) , the JR Yamanote Loop line (goes completely around central Tokyo) and the Namboku (SouthNorth line) subway to get to work which the station is in the basement of my office building.
I have a 8-10 minute walk depending on my mood to the station from my apartment.
I save a considerable amount of money here since I left Los Angeles and I don’t get paid that much. And even if I did have a car here, it would still cost me less to own and operate here, even taking into account the crazy prices for a parking space here. My apartment building charges about (USD$) 200-300 a month!
Though sadly, Tokyo is becoming more ‘unsafe’ place to be. Just yesterday some nut-job went berserk and killed seven people with a hunting knife after he already drove into a car.
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20080609a1.html
‘If you ask me, a place like Japan will be best.’
I have often thought of this as well and will devote some time to investigating realistic possiblities. I lived in the SF Bay Area and LA off and on for the past 20 years. I didn’t like SF’s narrow provincialism and elitism and agree with previous comments that LA is an amazing place with an unparallelled variety of activities but ruined by traffic and poor planning. However, what I think I love most about Southern California is the sense that one can be accepted into the “community” (such that it is) regardless of race, religion, background, lifestyle, etc. It is deeper than the mindless adherence to the religion of tolerance in the Bay Area because it’s much more real and leads to an amazingly diverse group of people whose central focus happens to be maintaining some creative energy. I’m not sure I would ever encounter this same sense of acceptance in Japan, although it might be a peaceful and orderly place in which to grow old. Just my 2 yen.
Where does Japan get its oil? Not domestic.
Japan gets a lot of its oil from Alaska. Alaskan crude is too high-sulpher for most US refineries (built a generation ago), but the far new and more sophisticated Japanese refineries can process it just fine.
Wrong.
Japan gets the bulk of its oil from the Middle East, Africa and (until recently) Indonesia.
Alaska is not allowed to export oil outside the US.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/alaskaoil.asp
Japan–oil is from Mideast. They also use a lot of LNG, which they get from Malaysia and Indonesia. Rest of energy–a tiny bit of coal (most has already been used up already), nuclear power. Not much geothermal or hydro (aside from the onsen). If we could figure out a way to use magma Japan would have it made…
I found quite the opposite to be true. I found people in LA to be extremely shallow and judgmental while people in the Bay area have been so much more open minded and accepting. I hate the Hollywood culture that pervades LA and its’ suburbs! People in the Bay area are also MUCH more educated than those in LA who all seem to be in or tied to the movie industry.
“I found people in LA to be extremely shallow and judgmental while people in the Bay area have been so much more open minded and accepting.”
*****
That’s interesting.
In my experience, people in the Alt-A Bay Area are extremely judgmental if you are a renter and are open-mined and accepting of you ONLY if accept the most popular brand of local politics.
I think you want a dense, well established neighborhood where you can walk to everything you need.
Queens or Brooklyn, NY perhaps (I was originally from Brooklyn!), or my current location: Sunnyvale California
Sunnyvale is a well developed suburban City of about 115,000 people. It’s self-contained. I don’t have to go far for anything. I put about 2500 miles a year on my car, mostly to and from airports. (I fly a lot on business).
I can walk to 3 different supermarkets, stores like Target, and companies like Apple and HP. There’s commercial office space, large and small, all around me (I used to have an office for my consulting business right up the street before I moved the business to Florida). Also nearby (and walkable!) are many restaurants: Indian, Afghan, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Japanese, and “American”.
I can walk to religious services (Sunnyvale Chabad, and the Sunnyvale Sephardic minuyan), though I belong to a Reform Jewish synagogue that’s one of the few things I need to drive to! For others, there are at least 5 Churches I can think of that would be easily walkable (starting with the RC Church around the corner whose cross provides my excellent cell phone coverage.)
There’s a park about 1/4 mile from me, and I can walk to another one. The middle school, 1/4 mile the other way, has a track that’s open to the public when school’s not in session. I take walks around it every morning.
My street looks like an ordinary suburban street, circa 1962 when the 3 and 4 bedroom ranch houses were built. There’s no “HOA” and “CC&R”. Someone down the street has a bright blue house. Kids can have toys in their front yard (prohibited by HOA rules in towns like Celebration) and basketball hoops (another HOA no-no).
Moderate weather keeps energy costs low. I think I ran the A/C about 25 days last year. It’s never gone below freezing in the 19 years I’ve been here. You can wear shorts and T-shirts 9 months out of the year.
I will NEVER sell this house in Sunnyvale, CA. Even if I need to move elsewhere, I’d keep it and hire a company to maintain it. When I’m 80 years old, I can comfortably live here, even if I can no longer drive.
Of course prices got bubbly here too. I’m expecting a 50% drop from the peak, when some 4-bedroom 1900 sq/ft houses went for $1.4 million. But, unlike other areas I don’t think we’ll see blocks and blocks of empty boarded up houses. At some price, people will want to live here.
Reuven,
I live next door to you in Los Altos.
I work all over the place and my commute is rarely over 20 minutes
each way..
The weather cannot be beaten.
The food is fantastic.
Excellent schools.
Low crime.
Other than that, this place absolutely sucks. J/K.
I never plan to sell this house as well.
I do however plan on purchasing land in Montana.
Mike
“…transit-oriented urban areas…”
Sounds reasonable enough, but what is the reality? How much will access to transit matter to RE values given current attitudes towards commuting?
This summer the buses that pass beneath my window are indeed more crowded, and bicycles are everywhere - even my on my unusual commute I pass several bikers each day. Scooters and motorcycles are everywhere.
All the same, for as built up as my environment is, there are also cars everywhere too. Chicago, by and large, cannot be compared to NYC in its acceptance of mass transit. That’s because as much as I’d like to see mass and alternative transit flourish here there are a few harsh realities at work:
1. Midwesterners love their cars and even if it means parking several blocks away from home - or paying hundreds a month for an outdoor spot on the same block - they keep their cars.
2. Gas doesn’t cost enough, yet. Plenty of those moving into the city still find it practical to move where the nightlife is but still work in the suburbs. The result is we now have a cars with one occupant choking roads in both directions.
3. Large public transit systems, unions, and pols combine to form a gooey tar-like blob that swallows money and squirts out horrific urine-smelling service. (Cities embarking on new transit projects be forewarned)
Besides the issues of funding, potential for corruption, and confiscation of land, there is another big drawback to public transit systems, i.e. unintended consequences.
For example, the growth of massive transportation infrastructure such as railroads, highways, and airlines has meant the demise of many smaller local businesses. This has in turn fostered centralization of economic power and the growth of large corporations, with results well known on this blog.
It’s also worth remembering that “white flight” and the decline of the inner city began soon after the construction of Interstate Highways in the 1950s. When there is a huge government “investment” in such systems, many people are all but forced to use them, and lose the incentives to focus on local neighborhoods.
That’s to say nothing of the risk of accidents, “carbon footprint” (if you believe in that stuff) and the like. I think we would be far better off discouraging travel altogether (encouraging tele-commuting, etc.) than buliding new transit systems.
Oil City, PA. The Allegheny River runs right through the town and houses are cheap.
Yeah, maybe so, but it attracts Beany Baby collectors. You’re forewarned.
LOL!! How didn’t I see this comment earlier? Great one, Lost.
What happened to that dude? Haven’t seen his moniker in awhile.
If we’re looking long-term into a climate-changing world then I think California and much of the southwest and southeast is out. The climate models I’ve seen (which are quite rough) predict increased drought and water shortages throughout much of the southwest and south. At the same time they predict moderating weather and increased rain in places like New England and the upper Northeast.
As for cities. I’m inclined to think that growing economic inequity and immigration is changing our mega-cities and not for the better. The future of cities like LA and Houston is more likely to be Sao Paulo than Stockholm. Mass transit and infrastructure is never going to keep up with growth.
I would look instead, for medium-sized cities with economies and hinterlands that are diverse enough to survive a changing world. But that are not so large that the problems are overwhelming. Places with good local agricultural bases that aren’t exposed to severe weather. Places like Spokane, Omaha, Madison, Raleigh, Portland, Nashville, Des Moines. All have plenty of water, diverse economies, good local agricultural bases, and are manageable. And none are in areas projected to suffer severe climate changes for the worst over the next decades.
As for countries. My vote for the best place to ride out global warming is Chile. Because it rests along the Andes it will never lack for water. The coastline is rugged and steep so sea level rise will have virtually no effect other than to take out the condos built exactly on the beach. Much of the coastline looks like Big Sur with mountains crashing into the sea. And the agricultural base is poised for climate change because it is so diverse with so many micro-climates based on elevation and lattitude.
Do you know the rules on Americans buying fee simple land in Chile?
Tim:
My wife is Chilean-American and her brother who lives in Santiago is a commercial real estate investor for a large American corporation. He manages their Chilean real estate investments. He basically decides where to invest millions of American dollars in Chilean real estate. We generally visit once a year on vacation and I keep seeing more and more American investments in Chile (Starbucks, Home Depot, etc.) but few American tourists ever discover the place.
Far as I know, there are absolutely no restrictions on Americans buying property of any kind in Chile. It’s not like Mexico.
Also unlike Mexico, Chile is the least corrupt country in Latin America. In many ways it’s much less corrupt than the US and more akin to Canada. The police are completely non-corrupt and the civil servants you encounter in daily life are generally helpful and polite.
Oh, and the country is quite modern. One can zip around Santiago on spanking new freeways with toll-tag access or ride clean subways. My mother-in-law’s broadband cable modem is 5x faster than what I have in Texas. The tap water is clean and drinkable (glacier and snowmelt from the Andes). And there’s both skiing and beaches within an hour or two of every major city in Chile.
Thanks. I will take it into consideration, especially if the dollar ever come backs. Many beautiful places. Retirement outside of the grid along a rocky coastline doesnt sound too bad.
Well, you don’t necessarily need to be off the grid. For reasonably civilized retired life on a rocky coastline in Chile I’d pick somewhere in the Maitencillo, Cachagua, or Zapallar area (3 neighboring beach towns in central Chile)
Here’s what the area looks like
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Zapallar_playa.jpg
Last year my wife and I spent a week in Maitencillo with the kids and we stayed at this place:
http://www.hermansen.cl/archs/ingles/home.html
Some of the coolest hand-crafted wood cabins perched on a cliff that you’ll find anywhere. All hand-built by a master woodworker.
Don’t forget, Chile does receive its fair share of earthquakes.
“Don’t forget, Chile does receive its fair share of earthquakes.”
Right. Hence the aforementioned Andes.
please contact me privately re Chile
rogue@rogueriver.net
as an ex-Madisonite (refer to my handle) I LOVED Madison. Problem is that someone with an engineering PhD has limited options in Madison. So I was forced to migrate to Mordor-on-Potomac (washington dc metro) which totally stinks.
Why does the location of our nation’s capitol have to be a swamp? sigh.
Because originally the location was a swamp?
it is feeling more like sub-Saharan Africa today!
And the wonder-bread DC burbs are any better? I once spent 3 months in Columbia MD, which is billed as #4 on the 2006 “Best Places to Live survey” for Money Magazine.
No real culture except that big boring mall with the Cheesecake factory, park-like greenspace that you can’t even walk or play on, cookie cutter homes, strip malls, and traffic jams.
I would have gladly lived in any area of DC or Baltimore, given the choice. Benjamin Franklin had a quote: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” He must have been thinking of the DC burbs.
If Hell is indeed DC, Columbia MD was at least purgatory, with very few “Africans” in sight.
Are you kidding? Surely that’s what people must want since it’s there. Pave over the forest and call it greenspace and people might get out of their cars to explore it.
Sorry, I’m a bit grumpy today. Our first sunny day in a month and EVERYONE is out. Long bike ride for me.
It hasn’t been very wet the past week, but it’s been 60/overcast and nobody’s out playing. Seriously, don’t these people know that it’s rainy and overcast for 6+ months here? If you don’t like rain or cool November-like days in May/June go somewhere else!
Why do you need sun to get outside/go for a walk or ride? Why?
I must not want much out of life. I’ve said this before, but I am grateful to be in this area, after having lived in a breeders’ backwater in Connecticut for fifteen years, where there was no “there”. I moved here well into middle age and broke — except, of course, for the funds none of us will touch. I was able to find a good job in under three months, while sleeping on sofas during my search. Compared to the sclerotic plastic backwater whence I came - considered by many to be one of the loveliest places in New England - the metro DC area is a haven of opportunity, and being here has allowed me to start rebuilding my life.
I like the Shenandoah National Park so close by, and the National Forests. I also think VA has the best state parks system ever. The traffic stinks — but where I came from, there was no traffic because the state is decaying from the inside. High costs, high taxes, no jobs, no mobility, no hope. People hunkered down, avoiding eyes at the grocery stores as they scramble back to their cars in crumbling parking lots.
For me, the traffic is a symptom of vitality. AND I have had interesting conversations here in the grocery store. Best of all, I am able to rent a 2 br apt two miles away from Tyson’s Corner for under $1200 a month. There are SIDEWALKS on the street where I can walk my dog when there’s not enough time to go for a Long Wallk in a state park. That would be Monday through Friday, umm, 70% of the weekly Wallk quota. People are nice to my dog — he can tell he is being admired in his geriatric splendor.
I am happy. Then again, coming from where I came from, it doesn’t take much to make me happy.
Will I stay here forever? Course not, not an idjit. Am socking away the bottlecaps and buttons for an arable spread somewhere in VA, where I can have a couple of cows, a very big garden, some chickens, my own berry bushes, and my VERY very own water. And a concrete reinforced house (fireproof) with a cistern, lots of storage and a long view. But for now, I am grateful to have the option to trade hours for negotiable tender. That option does not exist anywhere in CT if you are past 30. Used to be 40, but the jobs have gone away. Unless, of course, you have an aunt or uncle who is in one of the bloated state agencies, or are schtupping a chief in same.
Well, Chile and Uruguay are looking pretty good also.
Just my two bottlecaps’ worth.
I don’t recognise the Connecticut in Jane’s post. No shortage of high paying jobs in the part of CT I am familar with.
That’s wierd Kent, I’m from Omaha, lived in Chile (where I met my wife), survived the housing boom and bust in Florida (where we lived 10 years) and now live in Madison (I also went to school in San Antonio for a year).
“When all this settles out, taking energy costs, global warming, quality of life (crime, schools, health care, culture, etc), availability of jobs, costs (purchase, insurance, taxes etc) into account, where will the best places in the US be to buy a home in the coming 3-5 years?”
If you can get a job where you can telecommute/work out of house, that takes some of the energy costs out of it. We run our business out of the house, and our monthly gasoline bill is maybe $150. With no car payments, we haven’t had this low of energy bills since the early 1990’s.
Some of the way out places could still be viable if you can do this.
The problem with telecommuniting is that less than 10% of ppl can manage their time well if they are not supervised (or at least trapped at work so they can’t just sneak out the door). Also there are economies of scale that make most jobs inefficient performed at ppl’s somes (e.g., sharing of resources, access to documents, having everyone on the same network in the same building, etc, etc).
I have had five employees that asked me to telecommute. Everytime I eventually had to tell them to show up at work, or we have to discuss termination due to lack of efficiency. I no longer will even discuss it.
“I have had five employees that asked me to telecommute. Everytime I eventually had to tell them to show up at work, or we have to discuss termination due to lack of efficiency. I no longer will even discuss it.”
This is very puzzling and disappointing. I can’t believe that the technical issues of networking, etc., would be insurmountable, and it’s hard for me to imagine that someone who is really effective in the office would be ineffective at home. Does this mean they also don’t get much done when you’re on vacation? What if they offered to rent their own office space and have you watch them on webcams?
Having done independent contract work out of a home office for 3 years I can believe it 100%.
Problem with working at home is that you are home which means there are always 100 other distracting things that either need to be done or could be done.
laundry
dishes
gardening
shopping
cleaning
walking the dog
etc
On top of that you have books, internet, cable TV and so on as distractions.
What might be more practical is what the Federal government is doing in places like DC where they set up remote workplaces in various suburbs. Basically they just rent suburban office space in popular residential suburbs where various agencies share space for telecommuters. The 45 minute commute becomes a 5 minute commute. So if you work for one agency you might be in an office setting with people doing similar telecommuting for a bunch of different agencies. But it is still an office with networked computers, printers, copiers, tech support, etc.
Good post Kent.
Ditto. I work from home and it’s a REAL challenge some days.
I’d much rather have an office and the ability to work 4 10s or 3 12s a couple weeks out of the month and maybe a week per month to work from home.
Another issue is lack of socialization.
Having said that, when I stay focused for long stretches, it can’t be beat.
I dont understand why it puzzles you. Most of the time it is to take care of kids and such. They put off work saying they will catch up later and never do. Also do you think it it efficient to buy everyone highspeed printers, send technical support to their house, etc. It’s not that I constantly stand over them, but if you are at work there is nothing to interupt. Also economies of scale should be common sense, and shouldnt have to be explained. I hate to be rude, but you seem clueless about these issues.
Tim,
Maybe you’re dealing with a different level of people than I deal with. I think if someone is motivated enough to make it work, they should be able to do so– if necessary, renting their own space to eliminate distractions and buying their own equipment/tech support. I’m not blaming you, but it’s up to your people to prove that it can work.
Interesting… While I don’t have a lot of experience with working from home (it just became an option for us), so far it has been a great success. Staff working from home say they have way fewer interruptions and are able to get a lot more done. (We are performing an upgrade to one of our ERP systems so the work output is easily measured by management, so maybe this is a contributing factor. Easily measureable results might not always be the case though.)
Basically, it is like putting a “Do Not Disturb” sign on your door. Phone and email is forwarded/put on ‘Out of Office’. This may tend to eliminate a lot of ‘unnecessary’ communication that is more distracting than useful.
The verdict is still out, of course, because it is still very new to us. However, it is definitely showing promise so far.
I think it really depends on the people you hire. Good employees make it happen. Bad ones cost you an arm and a leg regardless of where they are.
Of course it depends on the industry you are in. Obviously some jobs cannot be done at home.
Lehigh I somehow doubt I am working with a “different level of employee” as I work at a large law firm and oversee associates who worked there way through the best law schools in the country. A crying baby or the lure of TV or the internet cannot be over looked. I expect teamwork and efficiency, with ppl and resources. Clearly it may work better for some professions than others. One thing I do know, however, is that every argument you made about me and what I was saying was based on false assumptions, so I would have more serious problems than efficiency if you were assigned to my work group.
“The problem with telecommuting is that less than 10% of ppl can manage their time well if they are not supervised (or at least trapped at work so they can’t just sneak out the door). Also there are economies of scale that make most jobs inefficient performed at ppl’s somes (e.g., sharing of resources, access to documents, having everyone on the same network in the same building, etc, etc).”
There are things I could do more efficiently if done from home.
I have a much faster and more reliable internet connection at home and fewer distractions. Instead, I’m stuck doing them at a glacial pace or not at all at work.
I think the issue is less that people can’t manage their time, but that too many supervisors do a poor job of managing people or much of anything else. While I’ve had a couple of supervisors that were good at managing people, most were not. Potential problems with telecommuting are hardly insurmountable. This remains a largely untapped “resource” to reduce the strain on other types of infrastructure.
I dont doubt it works for some and certain types of work. I confess that my experiences are just that, solely mine. It just didnt work for my group. I think part of the problem is that for attorneys to be efficient they need to delegate effectively to paralegals and secretaries, with 100% focus on resolving complex legal issues. Not doing their own edits, or resolving hardware and software issues, etc. Also we are under tight deadlines and work needs to proceed according to team and project schedules, with flexibibility for individual needs limited. My group is not for everyone.
You are correct that certain types of work and work situations are more conducive to telecommuting than others and it looks like you gave it a fair shot.
When one looks at the types of work that could be done through telecommuting and the actual amount that is, there’s quite a gap. There also seems to be quite a lot of reluctance among some workers and some managers to give it a fair shot where potentially applicable and useful.
The time honored profession of management consulting works very well from home. You spend your days at the client site, doing the group-y thing (9-5). You spend your nights at home doing analysis and presentation preparation (8-4). There are some associated support requirements: the so-called ‘top tier’ management consulting firms have 24/7 IT support, with live native US people at the other end of the phone line who know what they are doing when you call in, who can actually coach you through a tricky graph or whatever. Also, they have secure pipes into high speed color printers, with 24/7 support folks at the other end to pick up the copies, collate them, bind them or whatever, and courier them over to where you need them the next morning.
Tim, you’ve just not hit on the right model. For those recalcitrant employees who are pressuring you to work from home, demonstrate your enlightenment by offering them the the management consulting model.
(There’s a reason why the so-called ‘t-t’ shops have 25% turnover. OTOH, those were three years I wouldn’t trade for the world - anytime I walked into a room, it was clear that the folks were dead on competent. Course, you do get your share of a-holes. But boy, do you learn a lot. Fundamental flexibility in thinking, I’m talking about. Upon which I had previously thought I had a pretty good handle. Once your brain is stretched to grasp completely new approaches, it never shrinks back. Therein lies the lifetime benefit of a good education, or working with outstanding people, or working on worthwhile problems. Sometimes you get all three but rarely at the same time.)
So Tim! Stop being an ol’ stick in the mud! Offer the management consulting model, if the deed must be done.
Actually, I still do that every so often. Make my boss look like a hero by pulling that kind of intense effort and having a really good analysis in darn sharp presentation format for him/her to brief first thing the next morning. It makes me feel terrific, more so because I make a point of doing it lightly - e.g., because I CAN, and not like a martyr. Makes me feel like I’ve still got the stuff.
“While I’ve had a couple of supervisors that were good at managing people, most were not.”
Already had that discussion here, the management types made it clear that they didn’t need to learn to lead as long as they had affordable access to the very top workers from around the world who didn’t require any leading.
“Already had that discussion here, the management types made it clear that they didn’t need to learn to lead as long as they had affordable access to the very top workers from around the world who didn’t require any leading.”
One needs to draw the important distinction between “leadership” and “management”. The good managers stay out of the way of the well-motivated top workers. The managers of those workers don’t need to do much other than make sure the necessary resources are available to those workers when needed.
Another issue, as simple as it sounds, is cleanliness. If I have a lot of clutter around I tend to not be efficient.
When my place is clutter free (okay, it’s never 100%) I am much more productive.
You had lousy employees, Tim. Good people can work anywhere.
Thanks for insulting my employees. My coworkers are very, bright and hardworking attorneys. I wouldnt have hired them otherwise. The problem has always been efficiency. I dont think insulting others is appropriate, especially those that have devoted so much to get where they are. They have made lots of sacrifices along the way. Sometimes you have to face reality and deal with it. Wishes and dreams are not how to run a business. Somethings work, and somethings dont. I dont even blame those that couldnt juggle home life and work when working at home, as I would have problems doing that myself. That’s why it is good for me to get up early and go to work. Rather than blame others, why not try to find out what works? I dont understand the judgement aspect.
Sounds to me like in addition to the causes you cited, you had few measurables or didn’t communicate your expectations up front. (i.e.- we’re giving this a month. If your work slips, you’re back here)
While I have agreed with you (having done it myself) that there can be a LOT of distractions, it’s about setting priorities and communicating them.
There are a lot of objective points being made above, you are the only one being absolute. If I give my kid 20 minutes now but I work until 5:20 (assuming one normally works until 5) and the work’s getting done on time why does it matter?
If you’d just rather not do it due to all the planning involved in order to make everyone happy, so be it. But it’s not just about distractions.
“I think you just excluded the entire USA!”
There is some truth to this. First off, just about any major city in this country is going to flunk the crime test. And I don’t see that getting any better any time soon.
In Western Europe, for example, there are literally an endless list of safe places you could live. And you’ll find viable transportation options, mostly excellent schools, and essential social services.
The USA is sort of morphed into a 3rd world country, with pockets of massive wealth surrounded by overwhelming poverty. But the government is here to support the rich, which magnifies the problem.
So in conclusion, Europe would be a great option. Too bad our currency is now the US peso.
OK, here it is: I have tried to pursue this, since last year, and could not handle it. There is a distinct lack of vitality. I was born there, the mentality gets to me.
It’s sort of surprising to hear HBB’ers talking like RE developers and proponents of “live/work,” “mixed-use,” and “luxury urban loft” housing.
People won’t leave the exurbs en masse in favor of city row houses. They’ll just buy smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles. The automakers are already beginning to market them: see, e.g. the Toyota Yaris, Nissan Versa, Honda Fit.
And there are even smaller vehicles available in Europe, like the SMART car. They have smaller engines over there, too. Europe is filled with 1.2 liter, 94 horsepower 4-cyls. Those engines aren’t available in the US because they are woefully underpowered, but if gas prices keep going up we’ll get them. And the automakers will no doubt start building hybrid versions of these cars, and when this happens gas mileage will go up even more.
This is exactly what happened in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Muscle cars and large, full-sized station wagons were traded in, and Ford Pintos and K-Cars. My mother used to have a 1984 Chevrolet Sprint — a 3-cyl (that’s right 3-cyl) sub-sub-subcompact that probably weighed around 1500 lbs. I learned to drive on it; it was sort of like learning to drive on a skateboard.
There is no reason to start making hysterical predictions about the demise of exurbia.
Also, you have to remember that the definition of “exurb” varies greatly from city to city. The exurbs in LA are located 70 miles from the center of downtown and require four hour daily round-trip commutes. But the exurbs of Columbus, OH are about 15 minutes away from the city center. High gas prices will have a much greater impact on Murrietta, CA than on Pickerington, OH. Not all exurbs are alike.
Finally, I think there is a lot of subjectivity in this discussion. I understand why many here do not care for exurbs. I myself would never choose to live in the exurbs of Los Angeles. But if you are a working-class person — say a truck driver or factory worker — whose choices in housing range between an 800 sq ft shotgun shack in a decaying semi-ghetto and a brand-new tract home in the Inland Empire, you might well choose to endure a longer commute in order to give your family a better quality of life in exurbia.
Many US cities have begun to gentrify over the past 10-15 years, and there is good reason to think that this will not continue. But it is hysterical and apocalyptic to think that the exurbs will turn into ghost towns, McMansions will be boarded up and replaced with green housing, etc. Most likely, people will just start buying smaller cars.
I guess I am one of the few ppl that would actually prefer to live in a 2000 sq foot row home in a safe area where I can walk to work, restaurants and entertainment, taking the shuttle to airport when I need an escape. I cant imagine the suburbs, nor a long commute. It’s the city or a rural waterfront property for me.
I think a lot of people would prefer that, if they could afford it and the schools were good. 2000 sq feet is a gigantic row home, to me.
Lots of people would like to live their lives this way, Tim, but in no way can they afford. More power to you if you can, but few have the income or salary to purchase 2,000-sq-ft. homes for $500,000. Until the city elites (developers, lawyers, doctors, politicians) find a way to build homes that cost and average of $200,000-$225,000, all talk about successful mass transit, access to culture, etc., will be a moot point. Few people can AFFORD to live in places where mass transit is a viable option.
Commuting 50 miles each way to the Inland Empire is not “quality of life”. Many of those kids wind up in gangs because of absentee parents, who spend more time on the road than they do parenting. Broken marriages occur for the same reason. The lack of culture, convenience and connectedness results in a net efflux of population back to urban zones.
Anyway, the average wage earner won’t be able to afford the Brady Bunch life style if energy prices (or hybrid prices) don’t drop down to what they were. Unless population growth levels out, we won’t have a choice but to live an urban lifestyle.
Here’s the real deal sports fans. Let’s raise the price of gas to $5.50 or such.Some if not most of the joy riders will be eliminated. The people using the roads for the purpose of getting to work, school, and such will find less traffic (it’s happening now on the Central Coast at $4.50) for a ‘more’ enjoyable commute. The tree huggers will get their way as smaller death trap cars will be sold. If you can afford it keep your large Hummer or truck for your family protection. hehehehehehe
CNY is good for agriculture. Farms can be bought for about $1000 per acre. Lots of 100 acres to 1000 acres farms for sale. I am sure prices for farms will be come down soon. We have Amish people from Lancaster PA buying up farms and have formed the farm bubble. They are a very nice group to welcome into the community. Central New York is a beautiful place with very little traffic if you don’t mind the snowy winters. Traffic is a non issue. The density of population is very low. You don’t feel like you are living in a can of sardines or flowing in a river of people like New York City and its boroughs. Housing is cheap except for taxes. High paying jobs are limited. If you have a decent paying job or a lucrative business this Finger Lakes region is decent. My favorite place to live is Ithaca NY. The eco friendly, granola ,earthy, sail boating people are nice too.
On my last trip to Lancaster I heard a dreaded and all-too familiar sound: Clip-clop clip-clop clip-clop BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! clip-clop clip-clop.
Just another Amish drive-by shooting….
Hee. I’m originally from Ithaca. Always felt it was one of those places that never bothered to get out of the 1960s. (What can you say–one of the best restaurants in Ithaca is vegetarian.)
You DO have to like snow, however….
I love the farmers market where you can find great wines as well as Cambodian food. The Cayuga Lake is beautiful for Sailing. Treman Park is a mini canyon but cooler and nicer in the summers. Ithaca is always on the cutting edge of eco, earth friendly living. I have thought about moving to Ithaca
There’s a lot that I like about New Hampshire: water, low crime, access to medical care, little traffic, water, low taxes and low population density. Of course the downside is that it’s expensive to live here and we’re losing folks in their 20s to cheaper places. Many have to travel to MA for work. But I am seeing more cars on the roads than before compared to large trucks, SUVs and minivans. It does get very, very cold here but we have less of an insect problem.
I grew up in a suburb with excellent public transportation (subway and buses) but it costs a fortune to live there now.
We have pension problems in the state but a new bill was signed in to help to fix that. We’ll see.
There are a lot of nice things here but I think that it’s hard to find a place in the US that meets all of Ben’s criteria.
“Many US cities have begun to gentrify over the past 10-15 years, and there is good reason to think that this will not continue. But it is hysterical and apocalyptic to think that the exurbs will turn into ghost towns, McMansions will be boarded up and replaced with green housing, etc. Most likely, people will just start buying smaller cars.”
What are the factors against gentrification of cities when there seem to be many factors that would increasingly favor higher-density development closer to jobs and services?
Some exurbs will turn into ghost towns. That is not hysterical or apocalyptic. It isn’t unusual for some housing/developments to be destroyed during housing busts.
The issues for the exurbs go beyond just shifting to smaller vehicles. Higher energy costs will be a bigger drag on larger, lower-density housing that is farther from jobs and services. This drag isn’t offset just by shifting to smaller vehicles.
Not considered is what happens when there are supply disruptions on top of much higher energy costs.
San Francisco’s budget can’t be directly compared to that of any other city, as San Francisco is both a city and county. That’s why the city has a Board of Supervisors rather than a City Council. You’d have to combine the city budget of another city with the portion of the county budget allocated to the city’s population to find a comparable budget sum.
Jacksonville, FL is a city-county. I’m sure there are others, but not many.
Philadelphia, PA is city-county.
The City & County of Denver
NYC is five counties. Manhattan is New York County for example.
I agree with the posters that said the great lake states will be the the points of destination in the future. I think potable water more than oil is going the be the big issue our country will face in the next 25 years.
Ditto. Maybe I wasn’t paying attention before but it seems like, since the early 90s, people have increasingly moved around en masse. When they feel better financially there’s probably incentive to move for another job or even if they feel they need a change. (Although in most of those cases, that doesn’t solve the problem)
Now that people are finally waking up to how bad mismanagement of money (and listening to realtors’ forecasts) is, they’ll probably look for a more sustainable cost of living as well as traditional price:salary ratios when it comes to housing and not consider a few months of snow such a bad thing afterall.
The topic “Best places to buy” seems to have morphed into a speculative fervor co-mingled with doomsday scenarios. Simply, the best place to buy will be those locations where one can earn a living for the long term and that “living” is a function of carrying costs. I can think of no reason to anchor myself to a permanent location unless structural economic changes occur where I can count on long term employment that pays enough to cover costs.
I’m looking at Duluth as a possible bolt hole. Lots of water, good solid majority-Scandinavian populace, rich farmland in abudance, and cold winter weather to keep the riff-raff out.
“…cold winter weather to keep the riff-raff out.”
I have thought along these lines, too. A long, cold winter creates a natural screening mechanism for a resilient, hard-working, thrifty populace.
“… cold winter weather to keep the riff-raff out.”
Sigh. I was hoping that I had escaped the riff-raff league, but guess I didn’t.
I really, really *wish* I liked cold weather, because I could live for way less in than most of the places I find tolerable. But I’ve been a hot-weather guys since conception.
A sauna can be an antidote to cold weather. Sit in one long enough & you will forget the weather outside. The effect lasts for hours.
I like San Francisco and the beach areas of Los Angeles’ South Bay. Great climate, lots of conveniences, good transportation (near light rail - even in LA you can get onto light rail in north RB). Lots of universities.
If you can live where you work in LA beach cities or San Fran, you should jump on the opportunity to buy real estate there in 2012 at the bottom.
“… cold winter weather to keep the riff-raff out.”
Spent 10 years living and working in Alaska.
Trust me. There’s a whole breed of riff-raff that is attracted to the cold. The kind who like to mount gun-racks on their self-propelled snow blowers and who like to hunt moose from the comfort of their back porch.
If you truly want to get the bejeezus scared out of you, try driving around Anchorage’s frozen streets on a Friday night in January when the bars let out. You’ll see more monster SUVs and trucks sliding sideways through intersections at high speed than you can imagine.
I don’t care what people say, but I love LA. However, I make a good income, live in a great westside neighborhood, have a 10 minute commute to the office (during rush hour), endless job opportunities, amazing weather, great culture and more.
I do feel bad for anyone who has to drive in traffic. It is unbearable, but not all of the time. You just have to learn when and when not to drive.
I loved LA too, just couldn’t afford to buy a home ANYWHERE in the area, and I make six figure, without some gimmicky loan. I worked in Pasadena and lived in Culver City, the commute for the most part wasn’t too bad, I started work around 9am. The real hard part was when it rained and the commute home was pretty bad. But I always managed to do it in 45 minutes. (except when it rained!)
But when my projects here are finished, wife and I are heading back.
I’d consider Houston (humidity doesn’t bother me much (Tokyo is REALLY humid during the summer)) but friends are back in LA and my professional network….
Considering CA weather can’t be beat, how does Houston rate on your list? It doesn’t make any sense. Given a choice, I’ll tak CA weather, hands down over any other place. There is a reason people love CA and the weather is it. I’ve only been to Houston a few times and can’t see that place rated anywhere near CA.
Want to take a train to the airport? Try Portland. The MAX Red Line will take you from downtown to the terminal doors at PDX. You won’t even have to carry your bags off the train — helpful youths will shoulder the load. No really, they insist.
From my close-in neighborhood, I take the bus 10-12 minutes each way to downtown. It’s freaky, but still safer than the train. I can walk to most of the places that I want to go. We drive to the grocery, but only because it’s 50% cheaper than the one on the corner.
It doesn’t actually rain all that much in town, but the weather is generally gray, and it stays dark for way too long in the winter. Some people can’t stand that. Extremes of heat and cold are usually brief.
Housing prices are still way high, even now. This is only partly due to our urban growth boundary, but IMHO is more directly caused by the influx of people escaping from more expensive areas.
There is a glut of empty new condos here, and even some high-end developments are being converted into apartment rentals before they are finished. Not sure when we’ll finally normalize.
Where the jobs will come from, I don’t know. The City of Portland is not a friend to business (unless you’re an insider of course). Oregon is more dependent on tourism than ever. It seems like the outer counties are more friendly, but it’s an expensive place to hire people.