urbanSTL

Quote from Kirkpatrick Sale’s 1980 book Human Scale and it succinctly relates a fundamental truth about the purpose of cities.

    Cities are meant to stop traffic. That is their point. That is why they are there. That is why traders put outposts there, merchants put shops there, hoteliers erected inns there. That is why factories locate there, why warehouses, assembly plants and distribution centers are established there. That is why people settle and cultural institutions grow there. No one wants to operate in a place that people are just passing through; everyone wants to settle where people will stop, and rest, and look around, and talk, and buy, and share.

    Cities, in short, should be an end, not a means. Rationally one wants to have traffic stop there, not go through, one wants movement within it to be slow, not fast.

Sale goes on to list four ways in which cities should think about slowing traffic down:

    Cities should not try to move people to facilities but provide facilities where the people are.

    Cities should be small enough so that inter-community trips, when necessary, could be managed either on foot, by bike, or with some simple subway or trolley system.

    Cities should attempt to slow down the flow of traffic, particularly with plenty of squares and plazas and parks, places where wheeled vehicles are forced to halt, endpoints that invite stopping and resting.

    Cities should try to bring home and workplace back together.
https://books.google.com/books?id=PmyuD ... 22&f=false

Not sure if this is the right thread, but ran across this article from Redfin last week that predicts a major migration away from expensive coastal cities to more affordable cities with the rise in remote work. I have to think that Redfin has a good pulse on this considering they likely understand migration patterns better than any other entity having both census data and their own site data to mine through.

I kind of think we’re going to start to see a lot more in-migration over the next decade in addition to less people leaving as they are allowed to work remotely. Maybe a decade of population growth, finally?

Also, I think you might see out of town speculators/investors start to snatch up and rehab/develop more buildings in anticipation of this major migration.

St. Louis is pretty well poised to benefit from this. A cheap major metro, and the city is one of just 3 of the top 20 metros where housing is cheaper in the city than its metro.

Edit: (fixed link) https://www.redfin.com/blog/wfh-leaving ... cisco/amp/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've heard of this trend as well. The other issues will be if some states/cities have worse economies and failed businesses due to longer closures and harder virus impacts could cause more outmigration, especially if depending on how things go end up being seen in retrospect as too harsh. This could cause outmigration from areas not as expensive like Chicago and Detroit.

In-migration after this may not necessarily result in urban core growth. Since a possible takeaway of this could result instead is wariness of density and mass transit due to how the virus played out along with crime issues in STL. If that happens America may go back to suburban sprawl development gaining steam so that would mean people moving to the metro will not go into the city or even most of the county, but elsewhere. But yes I do see an increase in state to state migration after all of this since it caused such a societal disruption that will have people reevaluate where they want to live.

"St. Louis is cheap" has been true for it and other rust belt cities for a long time and hasn't been compelling. 
2010-2019 Nashville 21 net people per day Median home value $289,142
Minneapolis 14 per day Hennepin County 34.5 $309,650
St. Paul 7 (surpassed StL City recently byw) Ramsey County 13 $225,000
Denver 39 $465,466
Austin 57 $401,999
Phoenix 72 Maricopa County 203 $269,175
Lincoln 10 $197,791
St. Louis City and County -7 $131,350/$196,824
A rehabbed house in Fountain Park will cost 2-3x $131k so there goes the differential
Time will tell of course

quincunx wrote:"St. Louis is cheap" has been true for it and other rust belt cities for a long time and hasn't been compelling. 
2010-2019 Nashville 21 net people per day Median home value $289,142
Minneapolis 14 per day Hennepin County 34.5 $309,650
St. Paul 7 (surpassed StL City recently byw) Ramsey County 13 $225,000
Denver 39 $465,466
Austin 57 $401,999
Phoenix 72 Maricopa County 203 $269,175
Lincoln 10 $197,791
St. Louis City and County -7 $131,350/$196,824
A rehabbed house in Fountain Park will cost 2-3x $131k so there goes the differential
Time will tell of course

Fair, but I do think we attract a good number of college graduates/young professionals with all that we have to offer. I think that will magnify with all this predicted “major migration” and lead to what will potentially be our first decade of growth since the 50s. We also might be able to retain a larger percentage of Wash U and SLU grads than we have in the past as the job market expands.

We’re still losing population because our predominantly black neighborhoods are hollowing out from years of disinvestment, though, and that continues to be a significant issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the likely thing that could cause a "major migration" akin to the black migration north in the early 20th century and movement to the sunbelt is coastal cities flooding and desert cities failing.

Also, as someone who has had to recently navigate the St. Louis real estate market, let me try to argue that St. Louis is not THAT cheap. 
St. Louis comes off as cheap when taking averages of real estate prices all across the city. That includes extremely depressed and run down areas in North St Louis where, obviously, no one wants to live. 
Real estate prices in many areas of South City or the Central Corridor (the ones that would be desirable for someone looking at such rankings) are not low at all, especially considering the fact that public schools are some of the worst in the country. My brother and sister-in-law live in equivalent areas of East Coast cities with better public schools and the "hedonic" prices (i.e. prices for homes with equivalent characteristics and amenities) were not that different in the end. 
tl;dr - St Louis' real estate cheapness is mostly an artifact of 1/2 of the city being bombed out,

kipfilet wrote:Also, as someone who has had to recently navigate the St. Louis real estate market, let me try to argue that St. Louis is not THAT cheap. 
St. Louis comes off as cheap when taking averages of real estate prices all across the city. That includes extremely depressed and run down areas in North St Louis where, obviously, no one wants to live. 
Real estate prices in many areas of South City or the Central Corridor (the ones that would be desirable for someone looking at such rankings) are not low at all, especially considering the fact that public schools are some of the worst in the country. My brother and sister-in-law live in equivalent areas of East Coast cities with better public schools and the "hedonic" prices (i.e. prices for homes with equivalent characteristics and amenities) were not that different in the end. 
tl;dr - St Louis' real estate cheapness is mostly an artifact of 1/2 of the city being bombed out,

I hear you that our true price is deflated some by houses needing gut rehabs but

1) our education is improving in the city and we do have 3 of the top 10 high schools in the state.

2) there are plenty of neighborhoods where you can find affordably priced, updated homes for under $200k. I bought my home in Skinker DeBaliviere for $250k and if you plopped the same home down in a comparable neighborhood of Seattle it would get you $750k-$1M no questions asked. This is a very affordable housing market.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1) I really hope that is the case. We made the decision to buy in the city recently, and the only thing that had been keeping us from doing it all these years were schools. Our friends who have kids convinced us to try to navigate the charter/school system. There's always the Catholic/Private option if all else fails, but public is out of the question for now. 
2) I am not saying that St Louis is not cheap in absolute terms. My rant is trying to make two points: (a) "cheapness" rankings that are based on unconditional averages of rents/transaction prices make no sense in a city like St. Louis where a significant area is effectively condemned; (b) once you actually take into account the "hard and soft product" (i.e., something close to a hedonic price), it is not clear to me that St. Louis is that underpriced relative to other cities. I am not thinking about Seattle where there is a tech-fueled real estate boom going on, but rather cities with more stable real estate conditions like Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, etc. 

The big concern with schools is we don't know the status of them going forward due to funding shortfalls. Also its possible many private schools don't survive this.

kipfilet wrote:1) I really hope that is the case. We made the decision to buy in the city recently, and the only thing that had been keeping us from doing it all these years were schools. Our friends who have kids convinced us to try to navigate the charter/school system. There's always the Catholic/Private option if all else fails, but public is out of the question for now. 
2) I am not saying that St Louis is not cheap in absolute terms. My rant is trying to make two points: (a) "cheapness" rankings that are based on unconditional averages of rents/transaction prices make no sense in a city like St. Louis where a significant area is effectively condemned; (b) once you actually take into account the "hard and soft product" (i.e., something close to a hedonic price), it is not clear to me that St. Louis is that underpriced relative to other cities. I am not thinking about Seattle where there is a tech-fueled real estate boom going on, but rather cities with more stable real estate conditions like Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, etc. 

I do disagree with your last statement as all of the cities you name have a meaningful amount of disinvestment in parts of the cities. You can find move in ready houses for $300k in our most expensive neighborhoods.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I bought a house in Southampton in 2013 for 135,000. It had a new roof, new windows, new hvac system, new floors, huge backyard with a finished patio and about 1750 sq ft, 2 bed 1 bad and 1/3 of the basement finished . Sold it 2017 for 155 and the then something happened in STL in 2018 because I started noticing shitter houses in Southampton going for 175 and they were like 500 sq smaller. Probably could have sold mine in late 2018 early 2019 closer to 200.

We are looking to buy later this year or next spring- most likely in Lafayette Sq and you can’t even start looking under 350k (that’s needs some work)

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

May 25, 2020

I bought a house in Southampton in 2013 for 135,000.  It had a new roof, new windows, new hvac system, new floors, huge backyard with a finished patio and about 1750 sq ft, 2 bed 1 bad and 1/3 of the basement finished .  Sold it 2017 for 155 and the then something happened in STL in 2018 because I started noticing shitter houses in Southampton going for 175 and they were like 500 sq smaller. Probably could have sold mine in late 2018 early 2019 closer to 200.  

We are looking to buy later this year or next spring- most likely in Lafayette Sq and you can’t even start looking under 350k (that’s needs some work)

We were looking in Shaw/TGS/TGE/Lafayette Sq/Benton Park and could not find anything that met our criteria for ~that price either. 
We ended up going with a gut rehab in TGE for 400k. I am very happy with the house we bought, but I don't think it was cheap compared to what family members could find in Philly or Baltimore.

I'm not sure how long our houses will remain affordable. The gentrification that has been occurring has eliminated a lot of the "deals" over the past few years. As these neighborhoods have repaired themselves with rehabs and small business, the home values have risen a lot faster recently than other areas (minus the in-demand school districts of the county)

I wouldn't be surprised if affordability becomes a thing of the past in the Gentrification Belt (South City generally between Cherokee and 64) within a couple decades

dbInSouthCity wrote:I bought a house in Southampton in 2013 for 135,000. It had a new roof, new windows, new hvac system, new floors, huge backyard with a finished patio and about 1750 sq ft, 2 bed 1 bad and 1/3 of the basement finished . Sold it 2017 for 155 and the then something happened in STL in 2018 because I started noticing shitter houses in Southampton going for 175 and they were like 500 sq smaller. Probably could have sold mine in late 2018 early 2019 closer to 200.

We are looking to buy later this year or next spring- most likely in Lafayette Sq and you can’t even start looking under 350k (that’s needs some work)

Looking at Redfin, there are definitely fully updated/rehabbed homes that have sold in the LS for $300k in the last year (3 bed 1700 sq ft). You’re not going to get one of the larger houses, but you can get something comfortable. And the pickings are slimmer, but they do exist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought this house for a steal at that price for Lafayette Sq. Obviously someone else did too, it sold right away. https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1110 ... 4890_zpid/

I've been preaching that St. Louis is NOT cheap since we moved here in 2012.  People always compare the city for better or worse to the extremes. It's obviously not NYC (although CWE rivals Brooklyn prices), and it's certainly not SF, however everywhere is cheap compared to SF.   The average home price in the US based on a 2018 study was 210K, St. Louis County was $197k, not even a 10% difference.   Most transplants we've encountered agree as well. We have friends and family all over the country for a comparison and in general STL is not cheap. 

Second, if I hear that somewhere is cheap, I'm going to start wondering why it's cheap.  This should not be a motivator to get people to move here, same with "family friendly" (name a metro that isn't family friendly), and there's not much traffic (incorrect on so many levels, and it also implies not much is going on).

The stats are accurate due to the neglected parts of North City and North County, however if someone wants to live in a decent area with decent schools they are in for a budget surprise.

cteclipse wrote:I've been preaching that St. Louis is NOT cheap since we moved here in 2012.  People always compare the city for better or worse to the extremes. It's obviously not NYC (although CWE rivals Brooklyn prices), and it's certainly not SF, however everywhere is cheap compared to SF.   The average home price in the US based on a 2018 study was 210K, St. Louis County was $197k, not even a 10% difference.   Most transplants we've encountered agree as well. We have friends and family all over the country for a comparison and in general STL is not cheap. 

Second, if I hear that somewhere is cheap, I'm going to start wondering why it's cheap.  This should not be a motivator to get people to move here, same with "family friendly" (name a metro that isn't family friendly), and there's not much traffic (incorrect on so many levels, and it also implies not much is going on).

The stats are accurate due to the neglected parts of North City and North County, however if someone wants to live in a decent area with decent schools they are in for a budget surprise.

CWE is not Brooklyn prices. Not a chance. Not for what you get. Try putting the 100 building in Brooklyn and see what the rents are.

And whether it should or shouldn’t be a motivator, a low cost of living is the number one consideration of homebuyers according to Redfin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Moved to the Twin Cities in the summer of 2008. We moved N after my gf finished her PHD at WashU and was offered a job at a local University in St. Paul. We didn't want to move as we lived a block off S Grand on Connecticut and loved life living in the city, but the opportunities at the time, were not there (this was the recession I believe). Life is easy here, but in my opinion, STL trumps this place every day of the week, and I would not live here if it wasn't for my little girl.

Anyways, for a small comparison, here is a house I bought in 2015 ($235K), and sold almost to the day two years later ($267K) without putting a dime into it. It was a cute little house in an average city neighborhood (think Dogtown minus the brick).  I don't think it would sell for even close to what I paid for it in 2015 if it sold today in a similar neighborhood in STL.
Which leads me to believe, if STL can come together, become more inclusive, and can continue with the growth in jobs, it will easily overshadow peer cities once again. I still look at real estate back in STL and feel there are definitely bargains to be had, but prices have certainly been rising there too.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4321 ... 2296_zpid/

kipfilet wrote: ↑

May 25, 2020

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

May 25, 2020

I bought a house in Southampton in 2013 for 135,000.  It had a new roof, new windows, new hvac system, new floors, huge backyard with a finished patio and about 1750 sq ft, 2 bed 1 bad and 1/3 of the basement finished .  Sold it 2017 for 155 and the then something happened in STL in 2018 because I started noticing shitter houses in Southampton going for 175 and they were like 500 sq smaller. Probably could have sold mine in late 2018 early 2019 closer to 200.  

We are looking to buy later this year or next spring- most likely in Lafayette Sq and you can’t even start looking under 350k (that’s needs some work)

We were looking in Shaw/TGS/TGE/Lafayette Sq/Benton Park and could not find anything that met our criteria for ~that price either. 
We ended up going with a gut rehab in TGE for 400k. I am very happy with the house we bought, but I don't think it was cheap compared to what family members could find in Philly or Baltimore.

In all fairness to St. Louis, Philadelphia and Baltimore have vast swaths of their city that is bombed out and undesirable. Same goes for Chicago and obviously Detroit (which hardly has a handful of successful neighborhoods despite having twice the land area of St. Louis). Cincinnati and Cleveland also have their fair share of depressed neighborhoods, Cincinnati fairs a little better. Pittsburgh, a city that has become a urbanist favorite in recent years, also has a surprising number of rundown neighborhoods, but they hide it well with the hills like Cincy.

What I think the problem is in St. Louis is the lack of a coherent, city-wide development plan, lack of state support, and a total disregard for infrastructure investment in much of the urban core. Perception is reality and on many levels St. Louis is a city that doesn't take itself very seriously. There are smaller and poorer metros that just spend their resources better and make an overall better presentation of their city. They make the right investments and work as a region to improve their standing. St. Louis not so much.

My own undereducated opinion.  I think the proliferation of people treating homes as investments, and only seeing their purpose as a growth of equity is always going to drive the prices up.  You can't really change that kind of mentality.  It's less of a place of pride to hang your hat in permanence, and pass down after you're old.  But then again life has completely shifted over the last only 50 years.  There's not the same level of job security, and continental travel makes it that much easier to move your entire life so there's not as much happiness incentive to pick a spot and stick around.

Took a walk south of downtown yesterday, past all of the empty surface parking lots that are now charging as little as $2 a day. Couldn't help but wonder if this drop off in profits has put some of these parking companies into financial straits. Since this situation isn't resolving itself anytime soon, I wonder if any of these lots might be going up for sale? 

In reality they would likely get snatched by some holding group with the funds to float them until Baseball season returns, but if a developer was looking, it's a hell of a time to buy low.

^^ but parking lot upkeep is negligible and staffing is minimal, so i doubt they're hemmorhaging money. they pay (minimal) taxes once a year and whatever an operating license costs, and that's about it. maybe insurance?