South Street West is HOT, HOT, HOT...

[Lolly]

I'm not saying there aren't good reasons to live in the city instead of the main line. But one of them needs to be cheaper prices.

Umm. No.

[OffenseTaken]

I'm not saying there aren't good reasons to live in the city instead of the main line. But one of them needs to be cheaper prices. Especially with the impending AVI which will create property tax equality between the two (if not higher in Philly).

Philadelphia's real estate is already much cheaper, relative to its suburbs, than it is in most big cities. And frankly, city real estate should be expensive: if demand for it is low enough to be easily accommodated by the naturally meager supply, then there is something seriously wrong with the city in question. That's why Center City is never going to beat Montco on cost: it's always going to be either more expensive or less desirable.

It's also never going to beat Montco on much else, until Philadelphia stops sucking so bad when it comes to employment. How many people would be living in Manhattan, if half the people who lived there now had to schlep out to White Plains every day?

... though I usually stay away from South St. in general.

A few blocks from South St. are those large townhomes with garages. I was thinking that the area couldn't be too dangerous with people who invested so much close by living there ... but we know the stories.

Tell me more, please.

[the mule]

It's not the ghetto. It's also not worth $700,000 to live in any houses in that area. The prices are insane. Not Crazy Eddie insane low prices. But real estate bubble, overinflated on hype insane. $700,000 on the main line gets you a very nice 3,000 sqft. house with a half plus acre within walking distance of a train that gets you to Suburban Station in under 15 minutes with good schools, no trash, and nearly no crime.

I'm not saying there aren't good reasons to live in the city instead of the main line. But one of them needs to be cheaper prices. Especially with the impending AVI which will create property tax equality between the two (if not higher in Philly).

$700,000 also gets you a very nice house in a few better developed areas of the city, with many more local businesses and amenities.

[mprams]

There are but a handful of (2 or 3?) $700K houses on the market currently in G-Ho. But, if you are interested, for $700K+ you are getting a pre-construction 3,000+ square foot, pre-construction row home with all of the bells and whistles (private (perhaps 2-car) garage, highest end finishes, private roof deck). Take that same house and move it a half mile north, and you are talking $1.5 million. So while there is small market for these houses (most houses range from $275K - $400K), there is a market, and everything is relative. Get over it.

[Websterman]

It is interesting to note that the $700,000 houses seem to sell pretty quickly. And that the developer who built the ones on 20th Street is now going to build more on 19th Street. Obviously there is a market for upscale houses close to center city that are large and have garages.

[LUCas]

And frankly, city real estate should be expensive: if demand for it is low enough to be easily accommodated by the naturally meager supply, then there is something seriously wrong with the city in question. That's why Center City is never going to beat Montco on cost: it's always going to be either more expensive or less desirable.

True. But it should be more expensive when comparing apples to apples. A townhouse on the main line should be cheaper than a townhouse in WSW, Rittenhouse, or Society Hill. A 3,000 sq.ft. contemporary home with high end features, a half acre of landscaped property, and a pool in Narberth shouldn't be cheaper than a new 3,000 sq.ft. construction in "an up and coming area". That's out of whack.

[Malloy]

It is interesting to note that the $700,000 houses seem to sell pretty quickly.

Every realtor Ive talked to this year says that 250-400k homes sell quickly. Was I misinformed?

[ofeibush]

But everything this year is selling quickly in our neighborhood....so 250k-1million is a more appropriate range.

[torts]

Good. Now we just need to add commercial and kick out all the smellies who like to shoot, litter, rob, and steal.

[Lolly]

Good. Now we just need to add commercial and kick out all the smellies who like to shoot, litter, rob, and steal.

Agreed except I'm willing to just coax the smelly litterers to change their ways.

[Lolly]

A 3,000 sq.ft. contemporary home with high end features, a half acre of landscaped property, and a pool in Narberth shouldn't be cheaper than a new 3,000 sq.ft. construction in "an up and coming area". That's out of whack.

No it's not. It just shows that some folks value acres of property and things like private swimming pools over the pleasures of living within such close proximity to all the city has to offer, and vice versa.

Personally, I'd pay more for the 3,000 sq.ft. in the city. (And consider the responsibility of maintaining a half acre of landscaped property and a swimming pool a liability.)

Different strokes for different folks.

[Malloy]

But everything this year is selling quickly in our neighborhood....so 250k-1million is a more appropriate range.

Awesome!

[Burholme06]

There are but a handful of (2 or 3?) $700K houses on the market currently in G-Ho. But, if you are interested, for $700K+ you are getting a pre-construction 3,000+ square foot, pre-construction row home with all of the bells and whistles (private (perhaps 2-car) garage, highest end finishes, private roof deck).

...which is basically a mansion by city standards.

[LUCas]

No it's not. It just shows that some folks value acres of property and things like private swimming pools over the pleasures of living within such close proximity to all the city has to offer, and vice versa.

It's a 12 minute train ride. It takes about 8 minutes longer to take a train from Narberth and walk to Rittenhouse Sq. as it does to walk from 24th and South to Rittenhouse Square.

Different strokes for different folks.

I understand that and have lived in the city for 15 years. If you don't want a yard and pool and all that, then yoiu could get a townhose in Narberth for a couple hundred grand less, I was comparing price to price.

I'm just having a hard time understanding the benefit that's worth a couple hundred thousand premium when comparing like properties. Not arguing, would like to be convinced. Like I said, have lived downtown for 15 years. But I'm in the early stages of looking for a new place and finding it hard to justfiy staying in the city as much as I would like to.

Right now it seems my choices are: Get a really nice house in the city in an "up and coming area" and pay for private school. Or, for the same price, get a really nice house on the main line walking distance to the train with a private yard and not pay for private school while only adding 10 minutes to my commute. Or, get a really nice town house on the main line comparable to a row house in the city, not pay for private school, and pay a couple hundred thousand less.

If those were the only factors I would probably stick with the city because I do enjoy the convenience and lifestyle. But then I need to factor in crime, garbage, noise, and all the other downsides to city living. I appreciate any feedback on my thoughts.

[Lolly]

It's a 12 minute train ride. It takes about 8 minutes longer to take a train from Narberth and walk to Rittenhouse Sq. as it does to walk from 24th and South to Rittenhouse Square.



I understand that and have lived in the city for 15 years. If you don't want a yard and pool and all that, then yoiu could get a townhose in Narberth for a couple hundred grand less, I was comparing price to price.

I'm just having a hard time understanding the benefit that's worth a couple hundred thousand premium when comparing like properties. Not arguing, would like to be convinced. Like I said, have lived downtown for 15 years. But I'm in the early stages of looking for a new place and finding it hard to justfiy staying in the city as much as I would like to.

Right now it seems my choices are: Get a really nice house in the city in an "up and coming area" and pay for private school. Or, for the same price, get a really nice house on the main line walking distance to the train with a private yard and not pay for private school while only adding 10 minutes to my commute. Or, get a really nice town house on the main line comparable to a row house in the city, not pay for private school, and pay a couple hundred thousand less.

If those were the only factors I would probably stick with the city because I do enjoy the convenience and lifestyle. But then I need to factor in crime, garbage, noise, and all the other downsides to city living. I appreciate any feedback on my thoughts.

Ah, I see. Well certainly there are other considerations. Schools is definitely a big one of course. Though I'd also say there are some very good non-private school options in the city as well. Regarding the commute. Sure, the time you'll spend actually on the train isn't much longer than your walk to work perhaps. But what about the waiting at the station? What are the schedules like, at different times of the day/week? And your walk/drive to/from the train, now long is that? To me, popping out at any time the spirit moves me (repeatedly) any time of the day and walking to where-ever I need/want to be is worth a LOT.

ETA: At one time in my life I would have (and, did) favor the suburbs over the city for raising kids, but I've come to think that the benefits / richness the city has to offer to a growing mind could very well outweigh some of the convenience the suburbs offer to parents. And when I say convenience, I mean, parents having to perhaps think less and maybe worry a bit less about when and where their kids are or need to be at any given time.

[thoth]

It's a 12 minute train ride. It takes about 8 minutes longer to take a train from Narberth and walk to Rittenhouse Sq. as it does to walk from 24th and South to Rittenhouse Square.

This is kind of fluffy statement. First of all, although I get your point about narberth being a good town to commute from, googlemaps says it takes about 13 minutes to walk from 24th and south to ritt, train and walking to ritt from suburban takes 30 minutes. This is assuming that you live immediately across the street from the station, and the train is running exactly on time and at its average speed the whole trip.

I have found, through my relationships with people that live in Ardmore, Narberth, Media, etc, that the train, while certainly better than no train at all, is usually enough of an obstacle to keep them from frequently utilizing their position "30 minutes" from Rittenhouse Square, except for work. I think most people have a tendency to stick around their home neighborhood, regardless of convenience to other places. I mean, in theory, living in west philly, I could be in fishtown in 30-40 minutes, but in reality, I rarely go there unless something special is going on. That's the biggest tradeoff to moving from say 24th and South to Narberth/Ardmore/Media. The former, you walk out your door and you are downtown. The latter, you mentally calculate if you feel like spending a few bucks, driving/walking/waiting to sit on a train to be downtown.

I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. But I feel like when people start doing the "city v. suburbs" math in their head, it's easy to dismiss short commutes and the impact it will have on your relationship with the city.

[Burholme06]

This is kind of fluffy statement. First of all, although I get your point about narberth being a good town to commute from, googlemaps says it takes about 13 minutes to walk from 24th and south to ritt, train and walking to ritt from suburban takes 30 minutes. This is assuming that you live immediately across the street from the station, and the train is running exactly on time and at its average speed the whole trip.

I have found, through my relationships with people that live in Ardmore, Narberth, Media, etc, that the train, while certainly better than no train at all, is usually enough of an obstacle to keep them from frequently utilizing their position "30 minutes" from Rittenhouse Square, except for work. I think most people have a tendency to stick around their home neighborhood, regardless of convenience to other places. I mean, in theory, living in west philly, I could be in fishtown in 30-40 minutes, but in reality, I rarely go there unless something special is going on. That's the biggest tradeoff to moving from say 24th and South to Narberth/Ardmore/Media. The former, you walk out your door and you are downtown. The latter, you mentally calculate if you feel like spending a few bucks, driving/walking/waiting to sit on a train to be downtown.

I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. But I feel like when people start doing the "city v. suburbs" math in their head, it's easy to dismiss short commutes and the impact it will have on your relationship with the city.

This.

It’s great to have convenient transit to downtown as downtown is a destination for work and play. But living in greater center city is completely different than being a short ride away. As Lucas seemed to mention but not fully grasp, it’s a lifestyle choice. The lifestyle of living in a townhome in Narberth versus living in a row home at 24th and South? The comparison completely fails after agreeing that they both have party walls. If you value owning open land as Lucas seems to, living in an urban area will never compare by that criteria.


Edit: Just to add, I totally understand why people choose and value the suburbs as a place to live and raise a family. I'm not just sure why many people can't reciprocate. As if we are stupid or silly or suckers somehow - some great evolution of thought took place in the world and somehow we missed it. I can't count the number of times that the most random people have said things to me like, "So when are you moving to the suburbs?", "Why on earth would you live in a rowhome when you could have a big house, with a pool, and a garage?" "I can't believe you actually live there.", etc.

[LUCas]

This.

It’s great to have convenient transit to downtown as downtown is a destination for work and play. But living in greater center city is completely different than being a short ride away. As Lucas seemed to mention but not fully grasp, it’s a lifestyle choice. The lifestyle of living in a townhome in Narberth versus living in a row home at 24th and South? The comparison completely fails after agreeing that they both have party walls. If you value owning open land as Lucas seems to, living in an urban area will never compare by that criteria.

No, I totally grasp it. And didn't value land over city life (considering I've lived in Philly row homes for the past 15 years). The only reason I mentioned land is because I was comparing price for price. For what a house costs in the city, you would get a similar house PLUS the land for the same price in the burbs. Or, as I said, you can get a similary house without the land for a couple hundred thousand dollars less (roughly the value of the land).

What I'm trying to justify is that extra $200k premium to live in GHo, with all its plusses and minuses. At that dollar figure, the plusses just don't seem to be worth it, IMO. I would prefer to live in the city, I just don't think it makes sense financially with the prices as high as they are. They seem inflated to me.

[Lolly]

Location, location, location.

[boognish]

I look at real estate, particularly the home I live in, as an investment. That extra $200k is going to come back to me down the road should I choose to ever sell IF and only if the RE market keeps pace. We chose to spend more money to buy in the area in which we live in order to preserve our investment.

Or at least that what I keep telling myself when the mortgage is due.