Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Vosilla who wrote (289373)	11/5/2010 4:39:53 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

I wasn't implying anything more than, outside of the ghetto's, urban single family in decent neighborhoods hold much better value because of constrained supply due to lack of developable land and closer access to the jobs than far out newer suburbs. Yes, I see what you mean. I was looking at cities like MPLS, SFO, Seattle, Portland, Boston maybe etc as cities that have improved their poorer neighbhoods to the point where the overall value of housing is appreciating faster than their suburbs and people are actively moving back into the city because its considered desirable.....not fashionable.....but desirable. Its like Manhattan.......some of the poorest areas of Manhattan like Harlem and the lower East side have upgraded so much.....that there are few bad neighborhoods left in Manhattan. SF is the same way. It used to be that the Mission and Hunter's Point were the bad areas. But now the Mission is a very solid neighborhood and HP is getting there. Do you see what I mean? Prior to the last 15 years, the only cities like that were in Europe. In Paris, the poor live in the suburbs; the middle and upper classes in the city. Most European cities are like that. For me growing up, American cities were the inverse of Euro cities and you left the city as fast as possible.