The Rent's Just Too Damn High! (Pittsburgh, McCandless Township: hair salon, renters, loft)

[ferraris]

Originally Posted by Hopes

It's not good news for the people who can only afford downtrodden neighborhoods.

That's why I posted the link that said that local wages are also increasing. Sure there are some people who haven't seen wage increases, but there are also some neighborhoods and boroughs that haven't seen price increases.

The costs of repairing a building to make it nice or even habitable are relatively static compared to the increases in wages and rents we are seeing. A home that may not have made financial sense to rehab 5 or 10 years ago might make sense now. That's a good thing.

[grep]

Originally Posted by Hopes

That doesn't solve the problem of families with children needing a halfway decent school district.


That's the pathetic lifestyle that ultimately happens to high cost of living areas. It becomes necessary, not just something to get a good deal. Multiple unrelated people living in dumps. And it doesn't help families because they can't get roommates since families need more space, and parents are wise to not have strangers living with their children.

I can't speak to families, but as far as single people go, I couldn't disagree more. Co-habitating is very environmental. Besides the obvious savings on heating and electricity, you're eliminating redundant kitchens, bathrooms, etc. which matters both in terms of initial construction and ongoing maintenance. Furthermore, underutilized spaces have opportunity costs associated with them: if a building with ten 1BR units that each have 1 kitchen and 1 bath instead had five 2BR units, each still with 1BR and 1 kitchen, what could be done with the extra space? A lot! This is especially relevant when we're trying to figure out ways to fit more people into areas where they can bike, walk, and use public transit to get to their destinations.

Roommates don't work for everyone, but an awful lot of people living with no one or one roommate could live with more. Look around the world, and this is extremely common: parents, son, auntie, grandpa, and cousin all living together. Many people (including me) benefit socially by having this "support network" of people at home.

So to me, having roommates is a privilege: besides saving money, I know that I'm being more environmental than living on my own. We need more group dwelling!

[Caladium]

The other thing that happens when a city starts having economic recovery is people who own vacant properties become interested in selling them or fixing them up to be rentals. Right now Pittsburgh has a lot of vacant homes that are deteriorating--that may be changing. And IMO that's a good thing.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by Caladium

They will move to some other downtrodden neighborhood that hasn't been discovered yet, and eventually help to boost it. And the people in those neighborhoods do the same, and so on and so forth. The people on the lower rungs face the inconvenience of moving to neighborhoods that may be farther away from work and family, but for the most part do all right--it's those on the very bottom most rung who face the toughest challenge. What happens to them? They usually end up moving outside the city or they choose to stay and find a way to pay the rent. It's all part of the cycle of economic recovery. I agree that recoveries can be harsh, and I agree that it's unfortunate when rents rise quickly or when a city suddenly becomes trendy and lots of people move in. At the same time if a city doesn't have economic recovery it can't afford the services those people on the lower rungs need. Then you end up having a situations like you find in Detroit or East Cleveland.

Remember, you're responding to my question about Millvale. They're in a safe neighborhood and a halfway decent school district. How do you think it's okay to push them out into a further downtrodden area that isn't safe and doesn't have a decent school district? The people living there don't need a recovery. They're doing just fine.

Originally Posted by katenik

Sort of. I want updated interiors, but not necessarily new construction. My experience with newly-built rental units is that, while pretty to look at, the walls tend to be very thin, and I'm not interested in having disputes with neighbors about the volume of their sexual activity. (Been there; done that. It was awkward.)

This isn't a trendy area where that's the norm. Updated interiors cost more in Pittsburgh.

[grep]

Originally Posted by Caladium

The other thing that happens when a city starts having economic recovery is people who own vacant properties become interested in selling them or fixing them up to be rentals. Right now Pittsburgh has a lot of vacant homes that are deteriorating--that may be changing. And IMO that's a good thing.

This is another benefit. The environmental cost of building a new home in the suburbs is huge compared to rehabbing an existing home in the city. Not to mention that someone who lives in the city will probably have a smaller carbon footprint than someone in the suburbs because they won't be car-reliant, and even if they drive everywhere, their trips will be much shorter. With homes regularly getting demolished around the city as documented by PreservationPioneer, I hope that increasing desirability of some neighborhoods will eventually spill over into many of these other neighborhoods, and even if it doesn't make them super desirable, will create enough demand that houses stop being knocked down.

[katenik]

Originally Posted by dtrtrggr13

I was talking about the ones in southside at 10th and Carson

I looked at the site for this property. There are units in my price range, offering the amenities I desire, but I don't know anything about the neighborhood. Is it South Shore, or Southside Flats, or somewhere else?

[cheezit34141988]

Originally Posted by katenik

I looked at the site for this property. There are units in my price range, offering the amenities I desire, but I don't know anything about the neighborhood. Is it South Shore, or Southside Flats, or somewhere else?

Its in the flats at the far end right across from the 10th st bridge. Walking distance to the nightlife. Only gripe is its next to the salvation army recovery center if that's still there. Nice apartments.

If you like those and they're in your range, take a look at the Carson St Commons down near the Works. Same price range, new build interiors (cheapish but new), and a better location for everything in my humble opinion.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by grep

I can't speak to families, but as far as single people go, I couldn't disagree more. Co-habitating is very environmental. Besides the obvious savings on heating and electricity, you're eliminating redundant kitchens, bathrooms, etc. which matters both in terms of initial construction and ongoing maintenance. Furthermore, underutilized spaces have opportunity costs associated with them: if a building with ten 1BR units that each have 1 kitchen and 1 bath instead had five 2BR units, each still with 1BR and 1 kitchen, what could be done with the extra space? A lot! This is especially relevant when we're trying to figure out ways to fit more people into areas where they can bike, walk, and use public transit to get to their destinations.

Roommates don't work for everyone, but an awful lot of people living with no one or one roommate could live with more. Look around the world, and this is extremely common: parents, son, auntie, grandpa, and cousin all living together. Many people (including me) benefit socially by having this "support network" of people at home.

So to me, having roommates is a privilege: besides saving money, I know that I'm being more environmental than living on my own. We need more group dwelling!

It's important to recognize how these things impact families with children.

As far as sharing housing to reduce costs, maybe you're not aware of what that means in high cost of living areas. I said being forced to share housing to live in DUMPS.

My child paid $500/month to rent a bedroom in a house that didn't have heat that went above 52 degrees in the winter in Vermont. He shared that house with 8 people. That was an improvement from the previous year where he paid $400/month to share a motel room with two other people. The most recent year was an improvement at $600 + his share for utilities for a bedroom room because it was a private room and there was heat and access to laundry facilities, but it was still a fire hazard dump. He has friends who were paying that much to share a barn! Not a fancy rehabbed barn but literally living in a barn where you can see sunlight between the slats of the barn wood walls.

In Seattle it's worse. My daughter's girlfriend lives in Seattle. She paid $400 to rent a bedroom in a rodent and roach infested house with 12 other people (common area rooms were made into bedrooms with blankets dividing rooms), some of which were meth addicts. A mass exodus occurred when the water was shut off due to the owner not paying the utilities, and she ended up homeless in the streets sleeping in her car and on people's sofas for three months until she found another room she could afford.

[sealie]

You said you wanted quiet. Go to google street view, go about four blocks east, and count the bars.

[katenik]

Originally Posted by grep

I can't speak to families, but as far as single people go, I couldn't disagree more. Co-habitating is very environmental. Besides the obvious savings on heating and electricity, you're eliminating redundant kitchens, bathrooms, etc. which matters both in terms of initial construction and ongoing maintenance. Furthermore, underutilized spaces have opportunity costs associated with them: if a building with ten 1BR units that each have 1 kitchen and 1 bath instead had five 2BR units, each still with 1BR and 1 kitchen, what could be done with the extra space? A lot! This is especially relevant when we're trying to figure out ways to fit more people into areas where they can bike, walk, and use public transit to get to their destinations.

Roommates don't work for everyone, but an awful lot of people living with no one or one roommate could live with more. Look around the world, and this is extremely common: parents, son, auntie, grandpa, and cousin all living together. Many people (including me) benefit socially by having this "support network" of people at home.

So to me, having roommates is a privilege: besides saving money, I know that I'm being more environmental than living on my own. We need more group dwelling!

Just out of curiosity, what age are you? Ballpark. I am in my 40s and single, and I have ZERO interest in sharing living space with unrelated persons. The first time I had a job that paid enough to rent a studio apartment in a place I felt safe, I was done with roommates. I would bet that most people beyond the college years do similarly. I know that more people my age share space so they can afford to live in NYC, because NYC offers so much that some people think they can't live without, but I can't see that as an attractive option in many other places.

Also, it seems as if you are conflating roommates with extended family, which are different social dynamics. I would (and have) as an adult lived with family members, but the expectation on both sides is that it was a temporary arrangement. Most people I know with families of their own don't want single relatives permanently residing with them.