Housing + Transportation Affordability Index

[lordscarlet]

For anyone out there that likes useless statistics, this is a pretty cool site. They attempt to normalize how much it costs to live in sections of metropolitan regions based on housing costs, transportation costs, etc.

Housing and Transportation Affordability Index (http://htaindex.cnt.org/)

I came across it because of an article in the Washington Post about how it is cheaper based on this index to live inside the Washington, DC than the further suburbs that have cheaper homes: Transit options make District more affordable than suburbs - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/23/AR2010032304037.html)

[Philliesfan980]

Thanks for the post, I love stuff like this.

It just goes to show how overvalued housing still is in this country.

[Subby]

Of course you aren't going to live in DC and send your children to public schools, so you suddenly have a $25k per kid education bill if you are in the District.

[lordscarlet]

Of course you aren't going to live in DC and send your children to public schools, so you suddenly have a $25k per kid education bill if you are in the District.

Well, the paradox here is that if people that cared about their child's education stayed in DC rather than leaving because they think it's cheaper, the education system would be sure to improve. The problem is that the large majority of people that stay in the city and send their kids to public schools are uneducated themselves, are not involved in their child's education and don't take an active part in the day-to-day lives of their children.

DC schools ARE improving as well. It's not a quick process, but there have been gains under Michelle Rhee.

[Samdari]

The interesting thing to me is how did they compute transportation costs? The most expensive items in the cost of commuting by car are owning and insuring the car.

So, if you lived in the district and did not own a car, I could see this being realistic. If you live in the district, and take public transit to work, but still own a car, you pay the higher housing prices, plus 60% of the transportation costs the commuter does, plus your actual public transit costs, I would think that's still higher.

Plus, putting it as a percentage of income is decieving. By natural selection, people who live in the district make more. So, the cost of owning a home there, and taking public transit to work, could indeed be higher. For someone who makes XX dollars, all they care about is the raw dollars it costs, not the % of their incomes their neighbors will spend.

[wade moore]

The interesting thing to me is how did they compute transportation costs? The most expensive items in the cost of commuting by car are owning and insuring the car.

So, if you lived in the district and did not own a car, I could see this being realistic. If you live in the district, and take public transit to work, but still own a car, you pay the higher housing prices, plus 60% of the transportation costs the commuter does, plus your actual public transit costs, I would think that's still higher.

Plus, putting it as a percentage of income is decieving. By natural selection, people who live in the district make more. So, the cost of owning a home there, and taking public transit to work, could indeed be higher. For someone who makes XX dollars, all they care about is the raw dollars it costs, not the % of their incomes their neighbors will spend.

O RLY?

Estimated median household income in 2008: $57,936 (it was $40,127 in 2000)
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td>Washington: </td><td>http://pics3.city-data.com/sg4.gif $57,936</td></tr><tr><td>District of Columbia: </td><td>http://pics3.city-data.com/sg6.gif $57,936</td></tr></tbody></table>

Estimated per capita income in 2008: $42,069


Estimated median household income in 2008: $87,381 (it was $67,642 in 2000)
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td>Fairfax: </td><td>http://pics3.city-data.com/sg4.gif $87,381</td></tr><tr><td>Virginia: </td><td>http://pics3.city-data.com/sg6.gif $61,233</td></tr></tbody></table>

Estimated per capita income in 2008: $42,068

[Raiders Army]

Cool

[Samdari]

O RLY?

Estimated median household income in 2008: $57,936 (it was $40,127 in 2000)
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td>Washington: </td><td>http://pics3.city-data.com/sg4.gif $57,936</td></tr><tr><td>District of Columbia: </td><td>http://pics3.city-data.com/sg6.gif $57,936</td></tr></tbody></table>

Estimated per capita income in 2008: $42,069


Estimated median household income in 2008: $87,381 (it was $67,642 in 2000)
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td>Fairfax: </td><td>http://pics3.city-data.com/sg4.gif $87,381</td></tr><tr><td>Virginia: </td><td>http://pics3.city-data.com/sg6.gif $61,233</td></tr></tbody></table>

Estimated per capita income in 2008: $42,068

Putting the district in as one line item is stupid. There are sections of DC where the median income is well over 200, and sections where it is in the 20s. These numbers would be drastically different if you compared "section of DC where the murder rate is less than 10 times the national average" to the suburbs, vs the district as a whole vs the suburbs.

[wade moore]

Putting the district in as one line item is stupid. There are sections of DC where the median income is well over 200, and sections where it is in the 20s. These numbers would be drastically different if you compared "section of DC where the murder rate is less than 10 times the national average" to the suburbs, vs the district as a whole vs the suburbs.

Which the chart that LS shows takes into account.

Not sure where you're confused here. That's why it uses %'s.

You made the ridiculous claim that people in DC make more money. That is patently false. Sure, there is a neighborhood here and there, but that is all taken into account in the map he posted.

[Subby]

If you want a reasonably priced house (less than 600K) in a safe neighborhood, there is no way you are going to find it in DC.

DC is a great city to be single in or to be married without kids in - I know, I did it for three years and loved it. But unless you are rich, your best options for your kids is going to be the suburbs.

[lordscarlet]

Putting the district in as one line item is stupid. There are sections of DC where the median income is well over 200, and sections where it is in the 20s. These numbers would be drastically different if you compared "section of DC where the murder rate is less than 10 times the national average" to the suburbs, vs the district as a whole vs the suburbs.

And the same could be said for Fairfax, Houston, Fargo and every other jurisdiction in the world, what's your point? There are very few places in this country that are so homogeneous that there are not extremes on either end of the income spectrum. And, as Wade pointed out, the maps I linked to do not treat DC as one large entity. I'm not sure what breakdown they're using, because it looks possibly even smaller than zipcode. But let's assume they're using a breakdown by zipcode -- how much more specific do you want them to get?

[lordscarlet]

If you want a reasonably priced house (less than 600K) in a safe neighborhood, there is no way you are going to find it in DC.

DC is a great city to be single in or to be married without kids in - I know, I did it for three years and loved it. But unless you are rich, your best options for your kids is going to be the suburbs.

I would argue that your statement is patently false. Petworth, Bloomingdale, Brookland, Glover Park, and a lot of neighborhoods that aren't named Dupont Circle, Georgetown or Adams Morgan have many, many nice houses (not condos, houses) under 600k and those are safe neighborhoods.

[wade moore]

fwiw - I do agree with Subby that when you have kids there are a lot of new factors that come in.

I personally would probably never live in DC even without kids, but I've become more of a "country-livin'" type. But when talking specifically about cost, I think this is an interesting discussion that Samdari has all wrong.

[Subby]

I would argue that your statement is patently false. Petworth, Bloomingdale, Brookland, Glover Park, and a lot of neighborhoods that aren't named Dupont Circle, Georgetown or Adams Morgan have many, many nice houses (not condos, houses) under 600k and those are safe neighborhoods.
I don't know - I just went on realtor.com and it isn't looking so good for your argument.

And no offense, but you have been living in the city too long if you think Petworth or Brookland are safe neighborhoods.

[wade moore]

I don't know - I just went on realtor.com and it isn't looking so good for your argument.

And no offense, but you have been living in the city too long if you think Petworth or Brookland are safe neighborhoods.

As I just said to LS in chat, I think your definition of "safe" changes a lot when you have kids.

Let alone when, as you said, you've lived in the city for a long time. My perception has certainly changed since LS moved there and I visit now and then, walk around, etc. But certainly my comfort level is still nowhere near what it is walking around my neighborhood.

[Subby]

Right - I don't want to get into a huge argument about it. I love DC and I do think it is getting better. I get pissed when my relatives make it out to be one huge ghetto where every other tourist gets murdered.

That said, I stand by my argument that it is not a viable option for the majority of families with school-aged kids.

[lordscarlet]

I don't know - I just went on realtor.com and it isn't looking so good for your argument.

And no offense, but you have been living in the city too long if you think Petworth or Brookland are safe neighborhoods.

You've been living in the suburbs too long if you think they're not safe. See, it works both ways. ;)

Trust me, I'm looking at houses right now. The problem is the entire market in DC is very dry right now, so doing a quick search today isn't going to return much. I can post a list of houses, but I don't think either of us is trying to get that deep into it. Suffice it to say, I have been actively looking for a house in Bloomingdale/Petworth and there are very good homes in that price range. Obviously we won't agree on what "safe" is, but there are safe neighborhoods in that price range.

In addition, as I mentioned in reference to the schools above, that viewpoint is the problem. The people that are not going to commit crimes leave when they have kids, so the problem perpetuates. If all these twenty-somethings that live in the city and are a positive influence on the community would stay to raise their families, the neighborhoods would be even safer.


Right - I don't want to get into a huge argument about it. I love DC and I do think it is getting better. I get pissed when my relatives make it out to be one huge ghetto where every other tourist gets murdered.

That said, I stand by my argument that it is not a viable option for the majority of families with school-aged kids.

Yeah. It's generally thugs murdering each other. Both violent crime and property crime are down almost 50% since 1995.

The other argument that will never be settled is how much home one needs. A family of four doesn't need 3,000 square feet (not saying that's what you have, I don't know), a pool and a half acre to be happy. (This coming from the guy trying to get a 3 br house with a yard and parking :)) You don't NEED to get a 600k house in the city. You can get a 500k 3 br condo (which may be hard in the "good" neighborhoods) and be very happy. But, yeah, that's a bit hypocritical from me because I'm looking for a house. But I also feel safe in a neighborhood where I can afford one.

Sorry -- I'm doing one of my moments of rambling. I'll stop with that. I know people have different views on such things, and we will never see eye-to-eye.

[wade moore]

In addition, as I mentioned in reference to the schools above, that viewpoint is the problem. The people that are not going to commit crimes leave when they have kids, so the problem perpetuates. If all these twenty-somethings that live in the city and are a positive influence on the community would stay to raise their families, the neighborhoods would be even safer.

But if you have kids, why would you want your kids to be the ones that "tough it out" in the name of making the schools better?




The other argument that will never be settled is how much home one needs. A family of four doesn't need 3,000 square feet (not saying that's what you have, I don't know), a pool and a half acre to be happy. (This coming from the guy trying to get a 3 br house with a yard and parking :)) You don't NEED to get a 600k house in the city. You can get a 500k 3 br condo (which may be hard in the "good" neighborhoods) and be very happy. But, yeah, that's a bit hypocritical from me because I'm looking for a house. But I also feel safe in a neighborhood where I can afford one.


Again, for a family with kids, I think it's tough to argue that a 3 br condo is a good setup.

[lordscarlet]

But if you have kids, why would you want your kids to be the ones that "tough it out" in the name of making the schools better?


You wouldn't be toughing it out if everyone did it. If it was just normal. I'm speaking of something that will never happen -- 90% of the people that leave the city when they have kids stay. That would be a drastic change in the population and would make the "tough it out" period very short if existent at all. These are impossible hypotheticals. :)


Again, for a family with kids, I think it's tough to argue that a 3 br condo is a good setup.

Why? We grew up in a 3 BR house with less than a quarter acre yard. A 3 BR condo would have the same square footage we had, and a city offers far more parks and other options than we ever had.

[Subby]

Let's just settle this by having you raise your kids in the DC public school system and then comparing notes in 20 years. ;)

[wade moore]

Why? We grew up in a 3 BR house with less than a quarter acre yard. A 3 BR condo would have the same square footage we had, and a city offers far more parks and other options than we ever had.

Really? You're going to try and tell me that we wouldn't have "missed out" on anything if we were in a condo rather than a single family home?

Really?

[JonInMiddleGA]

and a city offers far more parks and other options than we ever had.

Offers far more perps per square foot too.

[wade moore]

I mean, you can argue various merits of the city, etc, etc.. but to imply there'd be no difference living in a 3br condo with 3-7 or more families jammed in around you compared to living in a single family home...

It's just madness.

[lordscarlet]

Let's just settle this by having you raise your kids in the DC public school system and then comparing notes in 20 years. ;)

If I have kids, it will very possibly happen. I'll let you know if we end up having kids, first. :)

Really? You're going to try and tell me that we wouldn't have "missed out" on anything if we were in a condo rather than a single family home?

Really?

Really.

I mean, you can argue various merits of the city, etc, etc.. but to imply there'd be no difference living in a 3br condo with 3-7 or more families jammed in around you compared to living in a single family home...

It's just madness.

It's not madness at all. People don't need to have a house, a yard, etc. That's a very American idea. You can live a happy, fulfilling, cultured life in a condo in a city.

[Samdari]

fwiw - I do agree with Subby that when you have kids there are a lot of new factors that come in.

I personally would probably never live in DC even without kids, but I've become more of a "country-livin'" type. But when talking specifically about cost, I think this is an interesting discussion that Samdari has all wrong.

I am not wrong in that when considering transportation costs, they are ignoring those who take public transit to work every day, but still own a car. I think that happens to be a significant number of people, and they are painting an inaccurate picture by ignoring it.

EDIT: I also think they have some of the numbers just plain wrong. When I was looking, to get a comparable house to the one I bought in Fairfax, there was nothing in the district in a neighborhood I would have considered living in, less than 500,000-600,000.

You think I've got it wrong, I think they are comparing apples to oranges and telling people theres a cheaper apple to be had in the city.

[lordscarlet]

I am not wrong in that when considering transportation costs, they are ignoring those who take public transit to work every day, but still own a car. I think that happens to be a significant number of people, and they are painting an inaccurate picture by ignoring it.

EDIT: I also think they have some of the numbers just plain wrong. When I was looking, to get a comparable house to the one I bought in Fairfax, there was nothing in the district in a neighborhood I would have considered living in, less than 500,000-600,000.

You think I've got it wrong, I think they are comparing apples to oranges and telling people theres a cheaper apple to be had in the city.

Perhaps you should actually look at the study?

Auto ownership costs, for the purposes of this research, have been defined as the cost of depreciation, finance charges, insurance, license, registration and taxes (state fees) per auto.

If you look at the "Autos per household" version of the map you will see a significant difference (not surprisingly) inside the city vs. outside the city.

I'm not sure why people are claiming the study is wrong as far as household prices. First of all, a household does not necessarily mean house. There are plenty of households for sale for well under $500k. There are also a large number of houses for sale for under that price, but perhaps not where you guys would live. That doesn't change the fact that it is cheaper to buy one of those homes and commute to work than to buy a home for the same price in Loudon county and commute to work. And a lot of people argue cost as a large factor for living farther away (my anecdotal evidence would say it's probably a little less than equal to safety and education issues)

[Young Drachma]

Is this thread like the time that Mark McGwire's brother wrote a book about him? Or is it like Ozzie Canseco's major league career?

Jokes aside, great find lordscarlet. Super interesting that it includes some locales you'd not associate with "commuting" because I've lived in them. Fun stuff.

[JonInMiddleGA]

That's a very American idea.

{scratches head}

We were talking about people & cities where again?

[lordscarlet]

{scratches head}

We were talking about people & cities where again?

There was a side conversation that began about whether you miss out on something by living in a condo vs. a home. I know getting off-topic is strange at FOFC, but it managed to happen here. I merely made a statement that having to have your own house and your own land is a very American idea. The thought that you have a less than satisfying life if you are confined to a building where others live above/below/next to you and you don't have a piece of land to call your own. I apologize for digressing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

There was a side conversation that began about whether you miss out on something by living in a condo vs. a home. I know getting off-topic is strange at FOFC, but it managed to happen here. I merely made a statement that having to have your own house and your own land is a very American idea. The thought that you have a less than satisfying life if you are confined to a building where others live above/below/next to you and you don't have a piece of land to call your own. I apologize for digressing.

I didn't think that was particularly off-topic actually, I was just saying that the attitude that you describe being an American remains relevant to the conversation since we're talking about US residents & cities.

I mean, I feel a sense of loss if I go a day without eating some form of meat, other cultures wouldn't bat an eye about that but it doesn't diminish my personal sense of loss nor make that any less relevant to my own decision making.

[lordscarlet]

I didn't think that was particularly off-topic actually, I was just saying that the attitude that you describe being an American remains relevant to the conversation since we're talking about US residents & cities.

I mean, I feel a sense of loss if I go a day without eating some form of meat, other cultures wouldn't bat an eye about that but it doesn't diminish my personal sense of loss nor make that any less relevant to my own decision making.

Fair enough. But I think that many Americans that do live in cities don't feel that need -- and it really isn't a need -- to have those things. So saying that you're missing out on something because you don't live in a house in the suburbs is just something I can't agree with.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Fair enough. But I think that many Americans that do live in cities don't feel that need -- and it really isn't a need -- to have those things. So saying that you're missing out on something because you don't live in a house in the suburbs is just something I can't agree with.

Standing as written I'd lean toward agreeing with you. Add the phrase "with children" to it and I'd strongly disagree with you.

edit to add: My perception of this could be colored by having Atlanta be the "city" (i.e. major metropolitan center, not just "a city") that I'm most familiar with. The definition of "Atlanta" comes in several forms, inside the city proper vs the city limits + adjacent cities vs city limits +adjacent cities +non-adjacent counties & cities.

Virtually every person I've known with children who had the means to do so has moved ASAP to at least an adjacent city (like Decatur for example) to escape not only the confined space of Atlanta proper but also the city school system.

[wade moore]

Fair enough. But I think that many Americans that do live in cities don't feel that need -- and it really isn't a need -- to have those things. So saying that you're missing out on something because you don't live in a house in the suburbs is just something I can't agree with.

But, again, we keep going back to this - generally those people that are "satisfied" don't have children. I think it's an entirely different ball-game when you bring children into the mix.

Generally, I think a condo in a city is a less than ideal scenario for a family with children. Are you going to miserable because of it? No. But I think that, generally, children will be more fulfilled in a single-family home.

[lordscarlet]

But, again, we keep going back to this - generally those people that are "satisfied" don't have children. I think it's an entirely different ball-game when you bring children into the mix.

Generally, I think a condo in a city is a less than ideal scenario for a family with children. Are you going to miserable because of it? No. But I think that, generally, children will be more fulfilled in a single-family home.

Why?

[molson]

I think you miss out on a lot growing up in the suburbs.

And that's speaking from an east-coast perspective. In Idaho, it's a no-brainer. I'm not sure exactly what's going on outside Boise, but I sure wouldn't want to find out.

[wade moore]

Why?

You have less freedom to move around.

you don't have you own yard to install things, plant things, etc, etc.

You generally don't have a safe area for kids to play outside that is as close as, oh, YOUR FRONT YARD.

It's generally unsafe (both because of traffic and other people) for younger kids to wander around the neighborhood.

I'm sure there's more, that's just my immediate list.

[Young Drachma]

I think you miss out on a lot growing up in the suburbs.

And that's speaking from an east-coast perspective. In Idaho, it's a no-brainer. I'm not sure exactly what's going on outside Boise, but I sure wouldn't want to find out.

Coeur D'Alene is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't wanna live there. :)

[Young Drachma]

Having lived in the city v. the suburbs, there's no comparison to city living. There's an appeal to living away from it, no doubt, but...I think life is generally a lot less interesting. I think having kids sways that conversation somewhat, but the more I look at suburban living, the more I think it's just lame. Most big cities have enough enclaves within them that provide the same facade; but as everyone has pointed out..the school is no small thing and I can understand why that motivates most folks to the hinterland.

[lordscarlet]

You have less freedom to move around.

you don't have you own yard to install things, plant things, etc, etc.

You generally don't have a safe area for kids to play outside that is as close as, oh, YOUR FRONT YARD.

It's generally unsafe (both because of traffic and other people) for younger kids to wander around the neighborhood.

I'm sure there's more, that's just my immediate list.

Move around? Do you mean in your home? My premise is a condo of equal square footage

You generally DO have a safe area for kids to play. It may not be in your front yard, but these days most parents don't feel safe even letting their kids into the front yard without watching. In that case, why not go two blocks to the park that is completely safe?

See my previous sentiment. That's copping out a little bit, I know. Traffic? I think if you're raised in the city you are as safe around city traffic as a suburban child is around suburban traffic. Other people? Yes, there's a higher concentration of people in the city -- even with an equal ratio of perverts/etc, there will be more in the city. You just have to take a more active part in your child's life instead of putting them out on the loose. But IMO if you feel safe letting your kid wander around the neighborhood, then you should feel safe letting them wander around the immediate few blocks in a safe neighborhood (as we've established, this is a subjective state) in the city.