Sherman Oaks, CA · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes
I am fascinated to see what you get in the D for the money. 42 units for 67k and one small catch. You can google map this one and see what happened in just 14 months.
Flipper · Cheney, WA · Member since 2014 · 77 posts · 47 votes
11y
@Matt R. Thanks for posting this! I just can't get my head around how things can be so different in different parts of the country. Where I live and invest any piece of property where you could build 42 units would be worth several times $67,000. A building which could be renovated would be worth even more, but then there aren't whole burned out streets which aren't being worked on either.
Real estate is SOO market based it is funny! When we first got married we moved to South Texas. On our way we saw my husband uncle. I couldn't get over that there huge house, in-ground pool, guest house was 380k in one of the nicest neighborhoods. That same houses in Severna Park would have been multi-millions! Honestly thats why I put SO much emphasis on location and schools!
Flipper · Cheney, WA · Member since 2014 · 77 posts · 47 votes
11y
@Elizabeth Colegrove I have in-laws in Texas as well, and I have often remarked on the price difference.
I can just about conceive existing property values someplace like in the video above. How much is a property worth if the whole area could soon be blighted like you see? It is an expected value calculation: What it would be worth on a cash flow basis in a safe environment less an adjustment (large in this case) for the chance that it will be a total write off in the future.
But what about new construction? Why is a brand new house which someone chose to build just north of Dallas worth $125,000 when that same house would be worth $300.000 in eastern Washington state? The lot price here wouldn't be more than $60,000 - probably less. The foundation would be more, the studs 2x6, the insulation more, etc here but still that can't explain the difference. All the labor would be the same, maybe more in Texas.
Rockwall, TX · Member since 2014 · 380 posts · 211 votes
11y
Does anyone really believe there is not going to be a significant loss of real estate values in Detroit and anywhere north east of the Chicago to Charlotte line? Sure there will be pockets of profitability, NYC, DC, Boston, etc., but the industrialized cities are doomed to losing value as they continue to lose population. You cant expect housing prices to rise in a city that once had units for 1MM people and now only has a population of 500K. Population predictions show Texas doubling in population over the next 25 years. Few other states are even close. Texas has plenty of land to help moderate housing price increases but still, people will only live so far from jobs, etc.
So where is the better place to invest; a cheap building in Detroit or a run-down building in South Dallas, Tx. Both are crime and economically challenged. But if you are looking for more than a few years of cash flow or appreciation potential, I think Dallas is the place.
Does anyone really believe there is not going to be a significant loss of real estate values in Detroit and anywhere north east of the Chicago to Charlotte line? Sure there will be pockets of profitability, NYC, DC, Boston, etc., but the industrialized cities are doomed to losing value as they continue to lose population. You cant expect housing prices to rise in a city that once had units for 1MM people and now only has a population of 500K. Population predictions show Texas doubling in population over the next 25 years. Few other states are even close. Texas has plenty of land to help moderate housing price increases but still, people will only live so far from jobs, etc.
So where is the better place to invest; a cheap building in Detroit or a run-down building in South Dallas, Tx. Both are crime and economically challenged. But if you are looking for more than a few years of cash flow or appreciation potential, I think Dallas is the place.
What?? What are you talking about? How in the world would you draw that conclusion? Chicago, NY, Philly are doing nothing but growing...As is the entire rest of the United States...I bet you think Ebola is going to kill off half the populations of all these cities.
Does anyone really believe there is not going to be a significant loss of real estate values in Detroit and anywhere north east of the Chicago to Charlotte line? Sure there will be pockets of profitability, NYC, DC, Boston, etc., but the industrialized cities are doomed to losing value as they continue to lose population.
Philadelphia is gaining population...just sayin'. Great first post.
Investor · Dallas, TX · Member since 2014 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
11y
Guys...don't get baited into an argument with someone who has 1 post and no profile. You don't even know who this person is. If the semicolon hadn't been used, and correctly, I would have thought it was Joe G. coming back!
Rockwall, TX · Member since 2014 · 380 posts · 211 votes
11y
Please forgive if my post seemed argumentative. I was simply trying to make the point that we need to be aware of trends in population movement when considering potential turn-around situation. I've heard it said 'you can repair a property but you cannot repair a neighborhood'. Of course this is on an individual level as we have all seen neighborhoods re-gentrify. But we certainly need to be aware that where populations are trending downward. The fact that a place was once a great city doesn't protect it from decimation.
In my quick list of exceptions I should have, of course, mentioned Philly. It is a great city and has a unique place in American culture (of course, the same could have been said of Detroit). Chicago may or may not be on the right side of the line. And it may all be a moot point if Texas and the rest of the Southwest doesn't figure out how to deal with water demands of huge population growth. Still, when I compare opportunities and see that Texas expects to grow by more than the entire population of New York state or the population of Illinois and Pennsylvania combined I think that is a place to look.
Please forgive if my post seemed argumentative. I was simply trying to make the point that we need to be aware of trends in population movement when considering potential turn-around situation. I've heard it said 'you can repair a property but you cannot repair a neighborhood'. Of course this is on an individual level as we have all seen neighborhoods re-gentrify. But we certainly need to be aware that where populations are trending downward. The fact that a place was once a great city doesn't protect it from decimation.
In my quick list of exceptions I should have, of course, mentioned Philly. It is a great city and has a unique place in American culture (of course, the same could have been said of Detroit). Chicago may or may not be on the right side of the line. And it may all be a moot point if Texas and the rest of the Southwest doesn't figure out how to deal with water demands of huge population growth. Still, when I compare opportunities and see that Texas expects to grow by more than the entire population of New York state or the population of Illinois and Pennsylvania combined I think that is a place to look.
That's a bit clearer. I'm as shocked as anyone that Philadelphia and some other cities are finally gaining population as the trend for decades has seen shrinking population in cities.