WSJ: rapidly growing mismatch between the price of available housing inventory and demand

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to expand affordable housing, increase density by changing zoning laws, in places that increase accessibility to transit. And yet instead, all the new developments seem to be either giant mcmansions way far out there, or giant new 1-bedroom apartment buildings in urban neighborhoods.

It's not even a matter of zoning- it's the size of the house and the price. Houses are too big and prices too high. A 500k, 1500 sq ft house is demolished for a 1.5 million 5000 sq ft house for instance.

The parallel dynamic in urban areas (like Trinidad in DC) is that houses are being flipped and marked up too much. $500k rowhouse being gutted and sold for $750k (and you can't even send your kid to the schools!)

It's not too much, if people are paying it. Homes sell for what they are worth.

Did you read the article?

Pay wall- sum it up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to expand affordable housing, increase density by changing zoning laws, in places that increase accessibility to transit. And yet instead, all the new developments seem to be either giant mcmansions way far out there, or giant new 1-bedroom apartment buildings in urban neighborhoods.

It's not even a matter of zoning- it's the size of the house and the price. Houses are too big and prices too high. A 500k, 1500 sq ft house is demolished for a 1.5 million 5000 sq ft house for instance.

The parallel dynamic in urban areas (like Trinidad in DC) is that houses are being flipped and marked up too much. $500k rowhouse being gutted and sold for $750k (and you can't even send your kid to the schools!)

It's not too much, if people are paying it. Homes sell for what they are worth.

Not really. It's easy to borrow again. Lots of people are overleveraged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to expand affordable housing, increase density by changing zoning laws, in places that increase accessibility to transit. And yet instead, all the new developments seem to be either giant mcmansions way far out there, or giant new 1-bedroom apartment buildings in urban neighborhoods.

It's not even a matter of zoning- it's the size of the house and the price. Houses are too big and prices too high. A 500k, 1500 sq ft house is demolished for a 1.5 million 5000 sq ft house for instance.

The parallel dynamic in urban areas (like Trinidad in DC) is that houses are being flipped and marked up too much. $500k rowhouse being gutted and sold for $750k (and you can't even send your kid to the schools!)

It's not too much, if people are paying it. Homes sell for what they are worth.

Did you read the article?

Pay wall- sum it up

Read it here:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017/04/01/buying-home-will-be-harder-than-ever-this-spring.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to expand affordable housing, increase density by changing zoning laws, in places that increase accessibility to transit. And yet instead, all the new developments seem to be either giant mcmansions way far out there, or giant new 1-bedroom apartment buildings in urban neighborhoods.

The giant fat McMansions are also replacing old housing stock close-in. There is going to be a glut of 6+bedroom Craftsman houses all over the area with a 'dated' look in 7-10 years. These are going for $1.6-$2.5 million around us--but they are all very similar. I just don't see a market for all of these very gigantic houses down the road.

Agreed. We briefly looked in Vienna, and the Craftsman McMansions right next to original ramblers just look laughable. I'm all for updating the housing stock, but they seem so out of place. Once the "newness" has worn off, I can't imagine they'll be all that desirable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to expand affordable housing, increase density by changing zoning laws, in places that increase accessibility to transit. And yet instead, all the new developments seem to be either giant mcmansions way far out there, or giant new 1-bedroom apartment buildings in urban neighborhoods.

It's not even a matter of zoning- it's the size of the house and the price. Houses are too big and prices too high. A 500k, 1500 sq ft house is demolished for a 1.5 million 5000 sq ft house for instance.

The parallel dynamic in urban areas (like Trinidad in DC) is that houses are being flipped and marked up too much. $500k rowhouse being gutted and sold for $750k (and you can't even send your kid to the schools!)

It's not too much, if people are paying it. Homes sell for what they are worth.

Not really. It's easy to borrow again. Lots of people are overleveraged.

Whether Or not someone has the means to buy a home, is irrelevant to it's value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I've wondered about this too. Many people buy and build HUGE houses, but don't really want them. I have a 3500 sq ft house, but would have preferred 2500 for instance. I just wanted 4 bedrooms (3 and a office really) and a large family room/kitchen. Not easy to find! Builders are not building what people want, but are instead building what will profit them. There is a disincentive to build small-medium sized family homes. They make the most money off the big houses.

My starter "house" was a condo, just like the majority of the people I know. Sure the HOA fees suck, but it's the easiest way to get on the property ladder. Townhouses were about 200k more than my condo and houses were about 400k more.

Then allow people to subdivide their property to build two modest houses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I've wondered about this too. Many people buy and build HUGE houses, but don't really want them. I have a 3500 sq ft house, but would have preferred 2500 for instance. I just wanted 4 bedrooms (3 and a office really) and a large family room/kitchen. Not easy to find! Builders are not building what people want, but are instead building what will profit them. There is a disincentive to build small-medium sized family homes. They make the most money off the big houses.

My starter "house" was a condo, just like the majority of the people I know. Sure the HOA fees suck, but it's the easiest way to get on the property ladder. Townhouses were about 200k more than my condo and houses were about 400k more.

Then allow people to subdivide their property to build two modest houses.

What in the world... It's not the buyers who are constructing these houses. It is developers. Buyers have no choice. They either buy an unrenovated shit shack for cash, or overextend and buy a new home. The real problem is that land and labor costs are too high for developers to build anything but the biggest and most-expensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I've wondered about this too. Many people buy and build HUGE houses, but don't really want them. I have a 3500 sq ft house, but would have preferred 2500 for instance. I just wanted 4 bedrooms (3 and a office really) and a large family room/kitchen. Not easy to find! Builders are not building what people want, but are instead building what will profit them. There is a disincentive to build small-medium sized family homes. They make the most money off the big houses.

My starter "house" was a condo, just like the majority of the people I know. Sure the HOA fees suck, but it's the easiest way to get on the property ladder. Townhouses were about 200k more than my condo and houses were about 400k more.

Then allow people to subdivide their property to build two modest houses.

What in the world... It's not the buyers who are constructing these houses. It is developers. Buyers have no choice. They either buy an unrenovated shit shack for cash, or overextend and buy a new home. The real problem is that land and labor costs are too high for developers to build anything but the biggest and most-expensive.

She houses stop selling, that will stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to expand affordable housing, increase density by changing zoning laws, in places that increase accessibility to transit. And yet instead, all the new developments seem to be either giant mcmansions way far out there, or giant new 1-bedroom apartment buildings in urban neighborhoods.

The giant fat McMansions are also replacing old housing stock close-in. There is going to be a glut of 6+bedroom Craftsman houses all over the area with a 'dated' look in 7-10 years. These are going for $1.6-$2.5 million around us--but they are all very similar. I just don't see a market for all of these very gigantic houses down the road.

Agreed. We briefly looked in Vienna, and the Craftsman McMansions right next to original ramblers just look laughable. I'm all for updating the housing stock, but they seem so out of place. Once the "newness" has worn off, I can't imagine they'll be all that desirable.

In a few more years, the original ramblers will look out of place. The newer homes will still have a market, so long as they are in areas with good schools near jobs (which is the case for Vienna vis-a-vis Tysons and Reston).

[Anonymous]

During the recession home building was virtually put on hold across the country. There is an enormous demand for housing right now, and yet there is also a strong anti-development sentiment in many communities, or regulations to keep density low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:During the recession home building was virtually put on hold across the country. There is an enormous demand for housing right now, and yet there is also a strong anti-development sentiment in many communities, or regulations to keep density low.

Why should my property value go down, so you can afford my neighborhood?

[Anonymous]

When a double income household with each partner making in the low to mid $100ks (3 x the national median income and more than 2x the DC median) are locked out of most desirable areas- you have a market that's not sustainable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When a double income household with each partner making in the low to mid $100ks (3 x the national median income and more than 2x the DC median) are locked out of most desirable areas- you have a market that's not sustainable.

Then The market will correct... or more people with trust funds and inheritances will show up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When a double income household with each partner making in the low to mid $100ks (3 x the national median income and more than 2x the DC median) are locked out of most desirable areas- you have a market that's not sustainable.

But while that income is high for the reat of the country, it is not high here. You are competing against the lawyers, lobbyists, tech guys, defense firm owners...whether you like it or not. Good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When a double income household with each partner making in the low to mid $100ks (3 x the national median income and more than 2x the DC median) are locked out of most desirable areas- you have a market that's not sustainable.

Then The market will correct... or more people with trust funds and inheritances will show up.

or we will see a steady decay of the middle class, our children doing worse than we do, while the 1% gets richer and the chinese and saudis buy up US real estate as investments