Anonymous wrote:I'd like to see a graphic on city prices vs suburbs and exurbs for major metro areas. For instance, some areas of DC houses are sitting with dropping prices, while in the burbs, housing prices are sharply rising. Specifically interested in what hybrid work from home does to cities long term as people seek larger homes with office space and don't have to commute 5x a week anymore

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to see a graphic on city prices vs suburbs and exurbs for major metro areas. For instance, some areas of DC houses are sitting with dropping prices, while in the burbs, housing prices are sharply rising. Specifically interested in what hybrid work from home does to cities long term as people seek larger homes with office space and don't have to commute 5x a week anymore

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is really interesting.

Areas not distorted by pandemic-related buying/selling - eg, Connecticut, unsexy parts of upstate NY, boring parts of New England - are seeing the most upward price growth since 2022 "peak" because demand still outweighs supply.

Meanwhile, places with large shifts in prices due to pandemic - SF, Manhattan, Florida, Texas - are getting crush because either supply outstrips demand or buyers during the pandemic bought at unreasonable prices not supported by long term fundamentals.

Hmmm, that's not what I see on that map. Florida is still increasing in many areas, and neutral or falling only 1% in many others. Not what I would call getting crushed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is really interesting.

Areas not distorted by pandemic-related buying/selling - eg, Connecticut, unsexy parts of upstate NY, boring parts of New England - are seeing the most upward price growth since 2022 "peak" because demand still outweighs supply.

Meanwhile, places with large shifts in prices due to pandemic - SF, Manhattan, Florida, Texas - are getting crush because either supply outstrips demand or buyers during the pandemic bought at unreasonable prices not supported by long term fundamentals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly. The real financial benefit to owning a home is locking in the price you pay for shelter for the next 30 years. As your income (hopefully) increases over time, the share that goes to shelter payments decreases. Then, after 30 years, you just have to pay taxes and insurance.

Not entirely true. That’s a myth. What you pay for shelter is never locked.
Your property taxes will increase, so will your insurance.

My PITI was $2800 six years ago when I bought. I now pay $3200. Higher property value -> higher taxes + insurance.

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly. The real financial benefit to owning a home is locking in the price you pay for shelter for the next 30 years. As your income (hopefully) increases over time, the share that goes to shelter payments decreases. Then, after 30 years, you just have to pay taxes and insurance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is really interesting.

Areas not distorted by pandemic-related buying/selling - eg, Connecticut, unsexy parts of upstate NY, boring parts of New England - are seeing the most upward price growth since 2022 "peak" because demand still outweighs supply.

Meanwhile, places with large shifts in prices due to pandemic - SF, Manhattan, Florida, Texas - are getting crush because either supply outstrips demand or buyers during the pandemic bought at unreasonable prices not supported by long term fundamentals.

I didn't get the same conclusion. The Mississippi Delta, West Texas/Panhandle and North Dakota have the sharpest falls. Those are far removed from major metro areas and I suspect other factors are at play and it wasn't pandemic demand. Those are pretty isolated parts of the country.

Likewise, Florida seems neutral, with some growth in south Florida and slight declines in other parts of the state.

Northern California is more relevant. Maybe NoCal finally really did hit the wall of growth. But I wonder if it has to do with homeowner insurances distorting that market too, as it's now much more difficult to get insurance in California due to changes in state law. I have friends in the Bay Area househunting and they tell me stuff still sells briskly in good areas, maybe a bit lower than a year or two ago but still sells.

The regions most supportive of your theory is Idaho.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is really interesting.

Areas not distorted by pandemic-related buying/selling - eg, Connecticut, unsexy parts of upstate NY, boring parts of New England - are seeing the most upward price growth since 2022 "peak" because demand still outweighs supply.

Meanwhile, places with large shifts in prices due to pandemic - SF, Manhattan, Florida, Texas - are getting crush because either supply outstrips demand or buyers during the pandemic bought at unreasonable prices not supported by long term fundamentals.

Anonymous wrote:This is really interesting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the issue that has been cited again and again (and ignored again and again). The Washington DC metropolitan region continues to grow in population with a significant number of higher income jobs coming in every year. The population growth signifcantly outpaces the housing growth and in the closer in areas, which are more desireable, there is very little room for additional housing growth. In closer in regions, the most housing "growth" is really just rebuilding. Developers buy older smaller properties and build bigger more expensive housing.

But the issue is that we have more population and many of them with higher end incomes, who are immigrating into our region and they all want what everyone wants, they want convenience to the urban areas and the benefits and perks of upper income. This is classic supply and demand. When supply is fixed or growing at a much slower pace than demand, prices go up, because you have more people willing to spend more to get what they want over those who aren't willing or able to pay more.

With the federal government here, there is no way that the Washington DC metropolitan region will experience a decrease in population growth and so demand will continue to grow. Unlike other metropolitan regions (like many rust belt cities) the federal government is not going anywhere and the various occupations that support it from federal contractors, to lawyers, to lobbyists, will keep the housing market rising. The increases vary, slower in some years, faster in others, but the prices will continue to rise. The housing crash and price corrections from 2008 were a result of financial deception by the lending industry (zero percent mortgages, sub prime mortgages, high ARM rates, etc) and was a financial correction more than a housing correction.

Saying we're not situated in exactly the same way as 2008 makes no sense. We just bought a home last year, so I'm not rooting for a plummet in the housing market. But any sort of economic downturn would likely result in a downturn in the real estate market. There are countless scenarios that could trigger this.

The difference is that the real estate collapse contributed to the economic downturn. Which is different than an economic downtown impacting home prices.

Leading up to 2008, you had janitors getting million dollar loans. That's not happening today. Heck, I remember when I first bought in 2007, the lender literally told me 'okay, we approved you at the 350 amount you requested. But let me know if you want to get higher. We can get you up to any number you want"

Posters saying we can't have a RE downturn because we're not making the same exact type of lending mistake as in 2008 are delusional. Bad lending practices was only one of the many possible drivers for a RE downturn.

The subprime mortgage collapse was the major reason for the 2008 housing crash and a big part behind the overall 2008 crash. We don't have a subprime mortgage crisis. Enormous difference. Mortgage lending standards are much more stringent.

Good lord no one is saying the subprime mortgage collapse wasn't the reason for the 2008 housing crash. Some of us are just saying that there are other reasons that we could experience a decrease in housing values.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the issue that has been cited again and again (and ignored again and again). The Washington DC metropolitan region continues to grow in population with a significant number of higher income jobs coming in every year. The population growth signifcantly outpaces the housing growth and in the closer in areas, which are more desireable, there is very little room for additional housing growth. In closer in regions, the most housing "growth" is really just rebuilding. Developers buy older smaller properties and build bigger more expensive housing.

But the issue is that we have more population and many of them with higher end incomes, who are immigrating into our region and they all want what everyone wants, they want convenience to the urban areas and the benefits and perks of upper income. This is classic supply and demand. When supply is fixed or growing at a much slower pace than demand, prices go up, because you have more people willing to spend more to get what they want over those who aren't willing or able to pay more.

With the federal government here, there is no way that the Washington DC metropolitan region will experience a decrease in population growth and so demand will continue to grow. Unlike other metropolitan regions (like many rust belt cities) the federal government is not going anywhere and the various occupations that support it from federal contractors, to lawyers, to lobbyists, will keep the housing market rising. The increases vary, slower in some years, faster in others, but the prices will continue to rise. The housing crash and price corrections from 2008 were a result of financial deception by the lending industry (zero percent mortgages, sub prime mortgages, high ARM rates, etc) and was a financial correction more than a housing correction.

Saying we're not situated in exactly the same way as 2008 makes no sense. We just bought a home last year, so I'm not rooting for a plummet in the housing market. But any sort of economic downturn would likely result in a downturn in the real estate market. There are countless scenarios that could trigger this.

The difference is that the real estate collapse contributed to the economic downturn. Which is different than an economic downtown impacting home prices.

Leading up to 2008, you had janitors getting million dollar loans. That's not happening today. Heck, I remember when I first bought in 2007, the lender literally told me 'okay, we approved you at the 350 amount you requested. But let me know if you want to get higher. We can get you up to any number you want"

Posters saying we can't have a RE downturn because we're not making the same exact type of lending mistake as in 2008 are delusional. Bad lending practices was only one of the many possible drivers for a RE downturn.

The subprime mortgage collapse was the major reason for the 2008 housing crash and a big part behind the overall 2008 crash. We don't have a subprime mortgage crisis. Enormous difference. Mortgage lending standards are much more stringent.