What you get for the money
Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 7:13 pm
.
If you take the equivalent neighborhoods in Chicago or Seattle, you cannot live there for less than you can on the Plaza or Crossroads for equivalent housing. Not even fractionally. If you are comparing less popular neighborhoods in Chitown, for example, you can't compare them with KC's most expensive neighborhoods. It would be like comparing Old Northeast in KC with the Gold Coast in Chicago. For a good equivalent comparison, try doing a MLS search for the Gold Coast vs. The Plaza and see how well that argument holds up.pittsburghparoyal wrote: You pretty much can't get crap in urban living in KC, for less than 400K.
It's a pretty sad state of affairs, on that front. When it costs more to live on the Plaza or Crossroads than it does in Chicago or Seattle, there's not much point in us discussing these developments. I doubt many on this board are over 35, and make over 50K even.
My ex girlfriend lived in one of the brick buildings facing the plaza on Ward. It was 450/month for studio w/o a dishwasher. And that was like 1998, so I don't think it's very cheap to live there.Tosspot wrote: I've heard reports of renters on the Plaza or the immediate fringe of it paying between $400-$500/month. If you can rent that cheap and still have urban living, then it's odd that the plateau to homeownership is that far off.
yeah, but an equivalent apartment on the fringes of the most desirable neighborhood in Chicago or SF or another city would be at least twice as much. that's the point.pittsburghparoyal wrote: My ex girlfriend lived in one of the brick buildings facing the plaza on Ward. It was 450/month for studio w/o a dishwasher. And that was like 1998, so I don't think it's very cheap to live there.
Not for long. Developers are realizing that there is as huge market for entry level properties. I remember the excitement over Riverbend Lofts, where the good collection of sub-150k units got snatched up quickly. Other projects in the River Market and other neighborhoods are going to try to hit that affordable benchmark. I assume developers have some margins to take away from for awhile.KCMax wrote: I lived in the shitty part of a DC suburb and paid $1000 a month in rent. Living in the actual city is close to twice that amount.
KC rent is still pretty cheap. But I agree, if you want to own, its considerably more, and more than most of us can afford.
It's not sad, its free market.pittsburghparoyal wrote: It's a pretty sad state of affairs, on that front.Â
I bought completely as is. I didn't even take the offered updates, which usually come at a pretty steep premium. Upgrade as you go, put in some sweat equity and build your own financial equity as you go and you'll see gains from the improvements that you spaced out as well as the portion of the place you have moved out. Assuming in 10 years you've paid $40,000 toward the principal, you can then buy a place worth $40,000 more with the same mortgage payment.shelroni wrote: I think that affordable is subject to opinion. It is not that the mortgage is too much it is more so the HOA dues are killing people. However, you probobly wouldnt have a single family home of the same caliber without spending at least that much per month on maintenance. People should be paying more attention to some of the "as is" buidlings Downtown or even in Midtown and the Plaza area. There are options for less than $100,000.
The big kicker is that if you want affordable living you have to either have the money to put into the upgrades or learn to deal with the fact that the place where you live may not have amenities like garage parking, or granite & marble,...it may actually look a lot like that rental that you move out of.
The kickback is in the equity. If you don't start moving into affordable housing now than as the pricing goes up you will continue to remain in the rental market. Buying a property in the city is an investment strategy. Think of it as more than just "paying yourself" it is truely making a smart investment if it is done well.