urbanMSP

I wish there was a "like" button.

I wish there was a "like" button.

that's a good Idea that I think has been suggested before! time to switch over to the suggestions tab and dust off that CAPS buttom! grab a pitchfork and demand a LIKE button !


Also personally I think Condos are rather pointless given that many places still have huge associations fee's upwards to even 400bucks a month! which when your renting a 800 1br. where as you can "buy" it for 150,000 then only pay 400 a month or 200 if you get a decent association rate then the savings are very little IMO. Perhaps if you find a really good location you will get a decent rate and be better of than renting but I doubt it. After taxes, insurace, association fee's and extra utilities is it even worth the added risk of investment?

In my condominium building, my association fee pays for my heat, water, cable, exterior maintainence, garbage, and free laundry with well maintained machines. I have an underground parking space (with storage locker). I rent out my parking space for $100 per month. We have security and I can pick up or send packages at the front desk. My association fee has not risen in 3 years. My mortgage payment ( with tax deductible interest) remains the same with no increase ever, and my property taxes have actually gone down every year I've lived here. It is not a fancy condo building, however, the building is extremely well maintained and there are no party till 5 AM behaviors allowed. It was the best decision I ever made to move into this condo.

I've never really rented other than student housing in college. I have a SFH in S. Mpls and an investment SFH in Roch. Anyone on here have a condo as an investment property? Or how does it compare to a SFH from an investment, not residence, perspective?

Great article and good news. The key is to have a wide variety of housing options. This is not an "us versus them" issue. Having a high quality housing stock of both rentals and condominiums attracts a broader and more diverse group of people who want an urban lifestyle. That can only be a good thing and a "win win" to create a thriving residential population downtown.

I hear it all the time, but what does it mean when a rental "looks" like it can be converted to condos? Where is it written that rental housing has to be substandard in comparison to owner occupied housing?

In general, I have noticed that urbanists promote that we (i.e. society as a whole) have a larger share of people who rent rather than own their place of residence. Frankly, I think it is a rather backwards idea, but admittedly I don't know too much about the issue. Could someone shed light on why there is such a push to promote renting amongst American society?

I'd hardly say there's a push to promote renting. The whole of American culture has stressed owning a home at all costs, and look where it's gotten us.

I think the question needs to be asked why should everybody own their home?

As a renter I have much more flexibility, if I get a job in another part of the country I can just break my lease and go, I'm not stuck holding onto a gigantic asset worth much less than I owe on it. There's also the fact that administratively it's usually easier to rent out units in a multi-unit building than it is to sell units in the building, and so if we're advocating density, we're in a way also advocating renting as a side effect.

As someone originally from a very rural area, I have to say that everybody, both urbanists and general society, is missing the point of home (and land) ownership. The point is to be self-reliant, meaning using your land productively to provide the essentials, like food, heat, and housing, especially if you don't have a job. Unfortunately, this means that it shouldn't be leveraged, which apparently everyone's houses now are leveraged. If you have a home mortgage or rent and lose your job and can no longer pay, you will lose your housing. Same goes if you can't pay your property taxes, so nobody in this country really has their own property any more. Since housing, prior to the origins of the bubble in 1995, rose at roughly the rate of inflation, it isn't really supposed to be a high return investment, it is supposed to be a very low risk-low (or think of it as no) return investment. Also Condos have significant difficulty with this at end of life cycle. I suppose if a condo building was engineered to be easily renovated and be visually appealing for many decades, then it would be alright, but otherwise it is difficult for me to wrap my head around a condo promoting building housing equity or self-reliance. Any thoughts on this point?

It's pretty impossible to live off the land in an urban, suburban, or even exurban area.

I think we need creative solutions that prevent people from feeling like second class citizens in their rented apartments that doesn't require condo ownership which does come with all sorts of problems. Either make it easier to condemn a condo building (so a few holdouts don't prevent a teardown and replacement) or make it easier to improve your rental space. I read an article about, among other things, the dreaded rental kitchen. There has to be some compromise that doesn't require home ownership to be able to improve your housing.
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housin ... -sac/6770/

See my first thought wasn't to make it so that condo owners can holdout so much, but codify ways to make it so that condo owners can buy each other out. Also I wasn't really trying to suggest that you must grow your own food, but rather that ownership is to at least have housing security.

I think we agree on making it easier to buy out condos, we're just stating it differently. Currently if I'm a developer and I want to rebuild a condo building, every person in the building has to agree to sell. I think in other countries (Singapore perhaps, but I can't find where I read that once upon a time) you only need a certain percentage to willingly agree to be bought out, and then legally you can force the rest to take the buy out (through some kind of eminent domain type deal) and then you own the condo building, and now you can tear it down and rebuild it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/15/busin ... ml?hp&_r=0

Part of the reason for the squeeze on renters is simple demand — between 2007 and 2013 the United States added, on net, about 6.2 million tenants, compared with 208,000 homeowners, said Stan Humphries, the chief economist of Zillow.

Good read in general.

Found this on the Strib today: http://www.startribune.com/opinion/comm ... 15672.html

remember when megan mcardle was bad at math and writing

Found this on the Strib today: http://www.startribune.com/opinion/comm ... 15672.html

It's an interesting read but her argument seems very suburban-centric. Or even exurban-centric. I think she's right that in the outer suburbs, house prices are going to flatline. I don't know that that's true in the core. Prices in the Wedge are steadily rising again. I'm amazed at what some houses have sold for there recently. I'd guess that the same is true in other hot neighborhoods.

That said, a lot of people get second mortgages to cover part of the down payment. Is that not done anymore? Certainly the risk is higher to the bank but presumably their underwriting factors that in (many apparently didn't, which led to catastrophe after the crash).

Frankly, 20% on a quality urban home is *a lot.* People definitely need assistance with it. Wages have not kept pace with the cost of living so that 20% is much harder to reach today than it was 20 years ago. Of course, the same applies to the mortgage payment -- it's going to be a higher percent of income than it used to be. That, I think, is going to be the biggest downward pressure on home prices. People aren't going to be able to buy them if prices rise like they did before the crash.

Unfortunately, that and what I see as stabilizing and rising of prices in the urban core are going to push more people to suburbia. This is one of the reasons we should be maintaining our urban housing stock. Many families will just never live in an apartment or condo no matter what. We want those families living in the city!

That said, a lot of people get second mortgages to cover part of the down payment. Is that not done anymore?

I have to imagine that was people borrowing against equity on their first home for the down payment on a second home. I can't imagine any scenario where borrowing the down payment is allowed. Most underwriting standards even look into the sources of large cash transfers before closing to certify against anything like a personal loan. The only thing I can think this would be talking about would be down payment loan guarantees that are within the underwriting standards. An example of this is how FHA and VA will do 3.5% down for first time homebuyers. Insurers and private investors may have different standards that raise the loan to value well over 80%.

Unfortunately, that and what I see as stabilizing and rising of prices in the urban core are going to push more people to suburbia. This is one of the reasons we should be maintaining our urban housing stock. Many families will just never live in an apartment or condo no matter what. We want those families living in the city!

What if we have to keep 20 families that are willing to live in an apartment out of the city to keep the 1 family that isn't? Not sure "preserve Single Family homes at all costs" is really a good idea, or at the very least isn't the forgone conclusion you see it as.

That said, a lot of people get second mortgages to cover part of the down payment. Is that not done anymore?

I have to imagine that was people borrowing against equity on their first home for the down payment on a second home. I can't imagine any scenario where borrowing the down payment is allowed..

These were first-time homebuyers and I was offered the same option when I bought my (first and only) house. I got the sense it was common practice before the meltdown. I honestly don't know how the banks did it either. But they they do a lot of shady things to make a buck.