With an eye to the future, should we really be buying in remote suburbs, or is that like investing in VHS rental shop in a digital age? I’m seeing what looks like a massive urbanization trend. I am a buy and holder. Other people put their end of year profits and personal savings into 401k plans. My wife and I buy properties for the future. Putting aside the (highly important) factor of micro-environments for the purpose of this thread, we have been talking a lot about trends. Julie & I learned in 2008 the impact of macro trends. Before that we only thought locally, but seeing the how monetary policy shaped real estate and affected our personal bottom line the way it did, I'm raising my vision to keep an eye on larger forces. If and when the interest rates finally rise and inflation hits to correct market tampering, we'll find ourselves in a very different economic and real estate environment. I’m locking in as many long term low interest loans as I can. In the same way that I see a tidal wave of inflation, Julie and I have been watching a steady flow of wealthy people migrating to city cores. In the past 50+ years our poor lived in inner city ghettos and the wealthy escaped to their suburban McMansions. But we are personally experiencing an inversion. We invest in Seattle and I've watched neighborhoods go from hooker to hipster. In the bay area, where we live now, San Francisco rents and prices exploded, which overflowed into an Oakland renaissance. Where do the poor go? Further out to where they now can afford to live. It makes me wonder if the suburbs might just end up our new ghettos. I don't see large companies moving their HQs to suburbs as they did in the past, but rather closing their branches to centralize in major metros. Where the jobs go, people follow. For the long term investor, where should we park our chips?

I honestly think the only thing that might END the suburbs is school vouchers or other massive change to the education system. The reason I am skeptical that those young families in DC will stay in DC once their kids hit school age is that DC has some dreadful schools. There is a street in Hartford/West Hartford Connecticut that is the border between the two municipalities. It is Hartford on one side, West Hartford (a separate city; a suburb of Hartford) on the other. Both sides of the street lined with some great old Victorians. Tree shaded street with wide flagstone sidewalks. Obviously both sides of the street are equally proximate to jobs, restaurants, cultural attractions, etc. The houses on the West Hartford side of the street, on the rare occasions they come on the market, are worth 2 to 2 1/2 times as much as the houses on the Hartford side. ANd this is a great improvement; 15 or 20 years ago they were worth often as much as 3 or even 4 times as much. And the reason is schools, period. West Hartford has excellent public schools, and Hartford dreadful public schools. In spite of the fact that more dollars are spent per student in Hartford. So if you buy on the Hartford side of the street, you either have non kids (huge old Victorians; not likely) or you have to price in private school tuition.

I guess it can be area dependent. Here where I am the suburbs are alive and well. In fact growth is incredible and the areas keep getting better and better. Some people do not want to live in urban core......... : ) I like my privacy and peace and not feeling like I am in a footprint squished in like a sardine to fit. Some people enjoy the extreme hustle and bustle. I love serenity. If anything we have more crime here in the downtown cities close to Atlanta. That element couldn't afford in masses to live in the burbs here in nice areas. Maybe Cali is shifting like you say but I do not see a whole country phenomenon happening with that.

I've spent my fair share of time in cities such as NYC, Chicago, Boston, and LA over the past decades, and I have many friends that live or have lived in those cities... so, allow me to have a little fun with this for a moment (as a guy from the 'burbs)............. I may be completely wrong, but I call BS on the premise that the burbs are in decline and people are movin' to the city in any significant numbers. City people act like living in the city is "convenient". Oh yeah, where is your GROCERY STORE? Oh that's right, everyone in the city eats OUT every night. (Just take the kids with you to Chez Josephine!) Most people who grew up in the suburbs also know the city, because we have to sometimes begrudgingly go INTO it to go to a government office =). Many who live in the city have no idea what's in the burbs because they spend their entire lives in about 10 square blocks in the city because they have NO CAR because it costs $450 a month to rent a PARKING PLACE for a car. (And try getting 3 or 4 bags of groceries home without a car... fun times! I've been on the subway with food bags - what a JOY!) And most people with children would rather lose an eye than have to live in a congested urban setting with their young ones and send them to the public schools there. In the city, you can get a few hundred sq. ft. for $150,000. In the burbs, you can get an entire house for that. etc etc etc Unless all those factors (and many others) are changing at an alarming rate, I think this is an academic discussion that does almost nothing to inform us as real professionals. A couple of studies aside, it seems unlikely that suburbs in any major metro are becoming less attractive to the many people who prefer to live in suburbs and not a noisy, congested, urban setting.

I'm with Joel on this. In Atlanta I see, not the opposite, but a different trend, more like 'hubification' rather than urbanification. The rural areas are what's losing out. Folks are moving intown. 'Intown' is pushing outward from trendy Atlanta neighborhoods out to the southeast (IP Decatur neighborhoods like Belvedere & Midway) and southwest (West End/Adair Park) in what used to be city suburbs, with 1950s-1980s SFHs. At the same time, the satellite areas are alive and growing solidly -- there are a number of Dekalb County areas wanting to incorporate their own little cities, and further out, metro suburban like Peachtree City and Dunwoody are thriving, related to but also somewhat independent of Atlanta proper. I think that's the medium-trend here. In 15 years? Anybody with more ATL experience

@Shane Pearlman , Not sure I'd call it the end of the suburbs, but I think the trend is alive and well and has been in full effect for years now, especially on the West Coast. I am amazed at what is happening in some of the formerly very rough neighborhoods in Central Los Angeles that I never would have dreamed of 15 years ago. There was an article in today's LA Times on such a neighborhood. I saw in a Bay Area newspaper last year how real estate had performed across the Bay Area since the end of the recession. The more expensive inner city areas had vastly outperformed the cheaper outer suburban areas. I think this goes against conventional wisdom since people think that most buyers would choose bigger lots and less crowded areas with cheaper homes. Lots of reasons why starting with the fact that millennials don't want to sit in a car 2 hours a day and have largely rejected the cookie cutter nature of the suburbs and even home ownership to an extent to the rise of childless couples and delayed child bearing. Of course this doesn't mean every inner city neighborhood will turn to gold and every exurb will turn to dust. Not at all.

Outer suburbs have become less attractive as the expense of commuting, in money and time, has increased. But I don't think that means an inevitable trend toward urbanization. And the reason is the impact of technology. The area I live and invest in is a rural area on the far outer reaches of the Boston commuting zone. And virtually everyone I have met who has moved here in the last several years shares two characteristics in common. They are attracted to small town/rural living (and the generally good schools and very low crime rates that come with it) and they (at least one member of the household) works primarily from home. As more and more people work largely on-line (and that really is something close to inevitable; the internal and external costs of the current "commute to an office building" model are hard to justify) then more and more people will be able to live in whatever environment they like. And that will not mean cities for all of them. I do think there will be changes. The most stereotypical, soulless suburbs will have to adapt. Become more "urban" in some ways. Mixed-use development, no more huge subdivisions of virtually identical SFRs, real town centers. Become more like villages. Villages have been the basic human habitat for thousands of years; it is only when economic factors require it that people choose to live either very remotely from others, or in crowded cities. The other thing that will matter is climate. If you can live anywhere at all, how many will choose places that are cold? I don't really foresee a re-population of the Great Plains. The only thing keeping many from moving South now is the form development has often taken there. My firm asked me at one point if I would be interested in taking over our Dallas office. Honestly, Dallas is something close to my vision of Hell on Earth (sorry Texans). And large parts of Florida are even worse. And Vegas is no place and no way for humans to live. So my prediction for the future is that there will be many places like Celebration, Florida, only without the same degree of rigid central planning. Villages with walkable centers, mixed-use buildings, density greater than a traditional exurb but way less than a city, largely in places with good weather.

It's an interesting question and one I've been pondering myself. Gas is expensive. Traffic sucks. And thanks to the drought my lawn looks like crap. So why wouldn't I want to live close to downtown? (Answer: I hate crowds and I work from home so I'm not overly concerned about traffic. But a trend I do not make.) Another aspect of this tend would be these new shopping centers that are designed to look like fashionable, graffiti free, downtown areas instead of the malls we grew up with. Several of them include residential space so you can walk to your shops and restaurants even though you're really out in suburbia.

Suburbs will never die. Heck. now that more people are able to work from home and the cost of oil is coming way down, commuting isn't nearly as expensive. There will always be those people that want to have a yard and some space and those people that like all the convenience of having everything they need within walking distance. I, for one, could never live in or even near the city. I can't even stand some of the ridiculously overpopulated suburbs here in Illinois. The logic of it just makes no sense to me. 30 minutes to drive 5 miles? Where is the quality of life in that? 4bdrm, 2bath homes with 2,000 sq ft and NO yard that sell for 600k? That just insults every sensibility I have. I don't care how good the schools are. Thats silliness. People who can move further out simply will. Its just common sense that you would want to lower your cost of living and have a better quality of life by moving further away from the city. Less crime. Lower taxes. Lower housing prices. Easier commuting in your day to day life. Outside being closer to a job, what other reason is there to be closer to the city? Sporting events? I can go without paying $200 a ticket to see a basketball or football game. Restaurants? You can only make a hamburger so good. So I don't see any way the suburbs will ever end. Far from it. During a recession I see people moving back because they need jobs. But when the economy starts going again, thats when people get tired of the nonsense and the economics of them and head out to the suburbs. Better quality of life.

I have been saying this about Chicago for years. Every soul sucking drive to the burbs to see my in-laws reveals more and more office buildings vacant. I worked the past few years in the employment advertising space and I can't tell you how many companies in the burbs saw a decline in talent and either did or were considering moving offices to a downtown location. It was not in every city but in ones with a CBD and transit options it was much more prevalent There was this article in the WSJ last year about it http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304...

The END of the Suburbs?

Roy N.Pro Member

Rental Property Investor · Fredericton, New Brunswick · Member since 2013 · 7k+ posts · 4k+ votes

11y

@Dev Horn

Suburbia is a predominately North American phenomenon. Much of what you mention is true as our Cities in Canada and the U.S.A. have transformed, mostly since the end of WWII, from places where we live to places were we go to work. This change has occurred in lock-step with the growth of suburbia.

Elsewhere in the world you can find very livable cities - you go to your neighbourhood grocer, butcher, baker, etc - instead of making a pilgrimage to a 6-acre warehouse on the outskirts of town; your kids go to school in the neighbourhood rather than spending an hour on a bus twice a day {BTW: Public schools in many places are the better ones ;)}. You do not need a vehicle for everyday life as public transit is efficient and reliable; for those occasions when you do need a vehicle, there are car-shares or vehicles for hire.

Culture, geography, and history play a large role in shaping livable and non-livable cities alike. Cities like Copenhagen, Oslo, Amsterdam, Bangkok, etc. are much older than any here in North America and were created when transportation was much more primitive - 20 miles is a long way on foot. Land is not as readily available in Europe and {parts of} southern Asia as it is in North America. As a consequence, these Cities came of age with greater density than cities in North America and the culture of the citizenry has evolved under the influence of these factors.

In a similar manner, the comparatively young, North American culture has evolved around independent personal transportation and suburbia - particularly in the latter 20th century and, perhaps more-so in the U.S.A. - and our Cities are frequently not livable.

2 Reply

Jason Farmer

Corona, CA · Member since 2014 · 154 posts · 100 votes

11y

@Shane Pearlman

Here in Riverside County, there are developments coming up everywhere and they are still extending out futher South towards San Diego. Inland Empire is catching fire, theres tons of new apartment buildings coming up. Lake Elsinore is gearing up for a huge development also. Corona has 3 very huge developments in the 5 yrs....If these builders have it wrong they stand to lose alot of money.

I think Suburb living will get bigger as time goes by, there will always be the old and the young. And when the young get old and tired of fast LA, they will move out to the suburbs where its peaceful. And i see a huge rise of married couples with kids moving out towards the suburbs, they want big houses for cheaper price. The only issue may be that the bulk of jobs are in the city. However tons and tons of commericial real estate is being built in Riverside county area in hopes more jobs moving out that way.

I for 1 hope what your saying dosent happen i love the suburbs, you make some very valids points, it will be interesting to see...

5 Reply

Matt R.

Sherman Oaks, CA · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes

11y

Dev for yours and mine generations you are 100% correct. This next gen is not so on board with living that suburban way. Maybe it will swing back one day but for now the trends are pointing in favor of living nearest hubs.

Some choice located suburbs will always in demand no doubt. In LA, the coastal suburbs will always be top tier. Most of the more central burbs will be top tierish too. Eventually, that trickles down to all aspects in that local community.

The areas getting the development in LA are communities you would have had wanted nothing to do with a couple decades ago.

Here is a partial list.

Venice was total crap... now 1 mil for teardown.

Santa Monica downtown had a ***** cat movie theater with Debbie Does Dallas playing and low lifes roaming up the ying yang...now 1.5 mil for small regular house if you are lucky.

Silverlake was gang invested...now pricey hipster central.

Hollywood....I used to work at Sunset and Gower studios in the 80s and it was sketchy out on the streets...now nearest condos can be in the millions.

Culver City was sketchy

Playa del rey was sketchy

El Segundo was sketchy

Eagle Rock was sketchy

Melrose was sketchy

West Hollywood was sketchy

Parts of West LA were sketchy

Parts of Pasadena and South Pasadena were no picnic either....all of these areas for most normal suburb folks were off the table....not anymore, bring your checkbook and maybe a bulldozer.

This lists goes on but I am typing on a tablet:)

Ps. 150k ..... are you talking 1900s or 1800s? :-)

1 Reply

Aaron Norris

Lender · California and Florida · Member since 2008 · 319 posts · 194 votes

11y

@jasonfarmer you have to go check out the KB development off the 215 on the other side of the hill from UCR. It's by the old dump. I thought it was Grand Terrace but I talked to the builder reps and it is indeed Riverside proper. There's potentially 1,500 homes. I had no idea the land was even back there. The models are up.

However, the builder is being cautious. They are pre-selling the plan before they build. Long gone is the build-it-and-they-will-come mentality. Looks like they almost sold out their first 16 homes from the first two tracks. One is more first-time inventory which is smaller. The others are larger and being marketed as multi-generational. Good for plans but even the models don't have really nice upgrades and the prices are a little high for my taste. I'll be interested to see how they do in the long run. To me they are hoping for Orange Crest pricing in an area that hasn't proven itself

There was potential for a builder to start on another 1,500 home project on the Riverside/Corona border at La Sierra Hills but Measure L was turned down so the $1 million + the developer spent didn't work out.

On another note, check out Camp Anza. The just broke ground on this World War II officers club in the Arlanza area of Riverside. Turning it into a recovery/community center with 30 affordable single family homes targeting recovering veterans. SUCH a cool project and I have zero idea how the City was able to find the funding for it since redevelopment dollars went away. www.campanza.com

Yeah, I'm a Riverside nerd. Some Los Angeles, San Diego and Orange County investors are haters. Little do they know that Riverside took our $2 billion in loans right before the downturn and spent the next 5 years completing YEARS of infrastructure projects in just a handful. If you've not come to the renovated Fox Theater, checked out the Mission Inn and Main Street, and dined in some of the local eateries (See Mario's, ProAbition, and Mission Inn Restaurant), you're missing out. We also have well water and have water that's sometimes three times LESS than neighbors not far away since we don't import our water.

Just curious, do other investors consider utility prices much when selecting rentals? I'm concerned more and more about this. Trying to stay away from HOAs and areas where drought will be a serious issue as water prices could be a problem for renters.

I'm a Gen X that lived in NYC for 7 years. I love urban living. I hated living in LA. Too much traffic. I love living close to work and I love the idea of walkable living. If Riverside developers developed NICE mid to high-end condos in Riverside, I'd seriously consider it.

2 Reply

Brie SchmidtBusiness Member

Moderator

Real Estate Broker · Chicago, IL · Member since 2013 · 6k+ posts · 5k+ votes

11y

@Shane Pearlman - I do not know about other midwest cities.... but I see it here in Chicago. Purely from a job standpoint many surburban companies are moving to the city. On my required surburban field trips (weddings, funerals, holidays) I see more and more vacant office spaces. In my corporate career I worked at Career Builder so I worked with employers all over the country to hire people and the shift was noticeable

That being said, there will always be people that prefer the city/suburbs/rural areas and have no problem commuting to where the jobs are. I think it is a personal preference. I get the hives even thinking about having to go to the burbs and I have many friends who feel the same way about the city.

Podcast Guest on Show #132

Second City Real Estate4.821 Reviews

Website View Page

1 Reply

Rob Gribben

Bel Air, MD · Member since 2014 · 119 posts · 36 votes

11y

I don't see a mass exodus from the suburbs, there will always be a demand I think, just a matter of how far out are people willing to go vs. 5-10 years ago. Most people now recognize the drag on quality of life when you have an hour commute to work. I definitely see a trend with millennials wanting to live in or near the city, and wanting to be able to use public transportation. Some will stay in the city as they age and have kids, but I still suspect most will move to the suburbs once they have kids. I have 3 properties in Baltimore City, and all are rented by young professionals.

1 Reply

Jeff S.

Specialist · Portland, OR · Member since 2010 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes

11y

In my area in Portland the inner city became hot some time ago. When I was working on a close-in rental women with strollers would walk by, stop and chat. In a few minutes another woman with a stroller. The area is within walking distance of Whole Foods, Starbucks and community coffee shops, and a short bus ride to town. The area is hip and cool.

In the burbs the owners are empty nesters. Prices decline when the economy falters.

Buying close-in was smart when prices were low; now prices are low in the burbs and deals are out there, and stuff sells there too.

1 Reply

Dmitri L.

Investor · DFW, TX · Member since 2013 · 319 posts · 101 votes

11y

Originally posted by @Matt Mason:

I have been hearing that technology will let everyone work from home my entire work career and that many people will ditch the city and work from a rural or exurban area. With the web, why work in an office. While this is true for some people, in many cases it is going the other way. Yahoo made headlines about a year ago when their new CEO said to pretty much all remote employees that they either have to go to a Yahoo office or they were out of their job. Many felt these employees were not nearly as productive as those interacting with people on a daily basis and were mostly disconnected from the Organization and just sucking up a paycheck for minimal overall productivity.

In fact the trend hasn't really played out. In the last 20 years more professionals have been moving into the cities than moving away. I think most milennials feel that their social media and technology connectivity while important is no substitute for human interaction. I see in my neighborhood a lot of people gathering in cafes working on their laptops. Seems like they could work from a suburban home but are choosing not to.

My personal opinion is that location-independence for "knowledge workers" is the longer-term direction, but it may not be fully realized for another 20+ years at a scale that will impact real estate trends. In the shorter term, 5-10 years out, I think we will continue to see large corporates rolling back their tele-commuting programs as they struggle to manage remote workers effectively. This has less to do with effectiveness of remote work in general, and more with outdated practices for hiring and motivating the right employees who will be successful in that kind environment.

Also, a new generation or two of workers that are brought up in an environment where tele-commuting is a real and viable option, will approach it differently than someone who was office-bound for the first few decades of their career - suddenly getting the option to work from home makes if difficult to resist the urge to party til the music stops, as it were.

Having lived both in a small town in France, as well as in Tokyo, Japan, I can attest to the fact that cities both large and small can be made extremely livable. Efficient public transit has alot to do with it; my station has 23 train departures between 8am and 9am, and the schedule looks like this:

8:00 8:03 8:05 8:08 8:10 8:13 8:15 etc.

Any delays off by more than a minute or so from the schedule:

1) are rare; normally triggered by extreme weather like a typhoon

2) trigger profuse apologies from the subway staff.

Another major difference is the US approach to top-down city planning - you simply can't have a "neighborhood grocer" inside a big blob of residential zoning. The latest trend for mixed-use developments are certainly a step in the right direction, but they seem to only happen with multi-million dollar projects approved on a case by case basis, so the amount of progress you will see this way will be limited due to the high friction. To have truly livable cities, you need a less prescriptive approach to zoning, which allows for bottom-up planning and development.

The zoning system in Japan is actually quite interesting, and simple. There are essentially 12 different zone types set at the national level, and that's it. Individual cities pick from these 12 types. Some very good discussion of the differences at the article below:

http://urbankchoze.blogspot.jp/2014/04/japanese-zo...

1 Reply

Dmitri L.

Investor · DFW, TX · Member since 2013 · 319 posts · 101 votes

11y

Originally posted by @Richard C.:

Meyer needed to make a splash. That made a splash. And today, Yahoo has a high a percentage of its workforce working from home as ever.

Go to the website of the largest health insurance company in the nation (United Health) and see how many of their jobs are telecommute.

Do you happen to have any stats for this? I wasn't able to find anything online, or in their quarterly/annual reports about employee mix. At the scale of a company as large as Yahoo, making significant change will take more than a year or two.

0 Reply

Max M.

Real Estate Investor · Palatine, IL · Member since 2014 · 102 posts · 22 votes

11y

I don't know about you guys, but I personally love the suburbs! I'm smack in the middle of the Chicago north/northwest suburbs and as far as I'm concerned this geographical region consists of many suburban utopias! This is where I plan to do business in real estate.

I'm not interested in buy and hold at all, so these macro trends don't really matter to me, except the idea of the suburbs dying fills me with woe and sadness! They are so lovely! (except for cookie cutter McMansion lots with low greenery and high "everything looks the same" factor, yucko)

Of course, I don't commute into Chicago, so maybe I'm biased. Every time I go into the city I feel like it's closing in on me, and I'm trapped. I will admit there's a certain charm and excitement to the city which would definitely attract me there from time to time, but the place I call home would definitely be a nice house in the suburbs.

@Brie Schmidt whaddaya think of the north/northwest suburbs? I love it out here (obviously some spots are better than others of course)

LONG LIVE SUBURBIA!!!!!!!

1 Reply

Jon Loca

Rental Property Investor · Saint Paul · Member since 2014 · 63 posts · 14 votes

11y

@Dmitri L. Telecommuting is becoming more and more popular. However, the example you gave are companies that are pulling back on their work from home leniency. Yahoo's CEO Marissa Mayer just cracked down on the policy and UHG (united health group) my friend works at and when they had layoffs they cleared out all the folks that weren't close to a central work hub aka telecommuting.

I think this is a very interesting topic. I do think the suburbs are going to slowly die. The the reason I believe this is because the largest demographic of people in America, baby boomers, are getting to retirement age. I don't know about others but when I'm in retirement I don't want to spend my days maintaining a house that's way too big for 1 or 2 people. I'd rather be in something more manageable, nice, in a location that will be able to stimulate me and all my free time. For this reason I think that when the boomers start to abandon their suburbs for the cities you'll see an increase in supply without a match in demand.

I'd be interested in getting other's opinions on this but here is how I see the demographics for suburbs vs cities:

Not college educated - The folks will be in the same place they grew up - suburbs and cheap rent in cities

College educated - Ages 21-30 = cities, Ages 30 - 50 with kids = suburbs, Ages 30 -50 without kids = cities, Ages 50 + cities

1 Reply

Dan D.

Investor · Shakopee, MN · Member since 2014 · 219 posts · 88 votes

11y

Originally posted by @Jon Loca:

@Dmitri L. Telecommuting is becoming more and more popular. However, the example you gave are companies that are pulling back on their work from home leniency. Yahoo's CEO Marissa Mayer just cracked down on the policy and UHG (united health group) my friend works at and when they had layoffs they cleared out all the folks that weren't close to a central work hub aka telecommuting.

I think this is a very interesting topic. I do think the suburbs are going to slowly die. The the reason I believe this is because the largest demographic of people in America, baby boomers, are getting to retirement age. I don't know about others but when I'm in retirement I don't want to spend my days maintaining a house that's way too big for 1 or 2 people. I'd rather be in something more manageable, nice, in a location that will be able to stimulate me and all my free time. For this reason I think that when the boomers start to abandon their suburbs for the cities you'll see an increase in supply without a match in demand.

I'd be interested in getting other's opinions on this but here is how I see the demographics for suburbs vs cities:

Not college educated - The folks will be in the same place they grew up - suburbs and cheap rent in cities

College educated - Ages 21-30 = cities, Ages 30 - 50 with kids = suburbs, Ages 30 -50 without kids = cities, Ages 50 + cities

I get the idea of baby boomers downsizing, but many I know and talk to would sooner stay in the place they have than move to some small condo. I find an appeal to live downtown during my retired years, but only if it's one of a couple options.

From a macro standpoint, our population is still growing (and will likely continue to). With that, urban sprawl I would think would continue because they can't keep building enough high-rises for this "demand".

Regarding Marissa Mayer and UHG... I look at those types of moves as a workforce "correction" on abuses of privilege more than a long-term stoppage of that trend.

When the most highly sought and entrepreneurial labor prefers to work independently, they drive the market. They have the power and ability to freelance or work for other companies who highly seek them, so getting cut from yahoo probably hurt yahoo (if the workers were real contributors) more than it hurt each individual if they are highly talented.

0 Reply

Dan D.

Investor · Shakopee, MN · Member since 2014 · 219 posts · 88 votes

11y

More on the yahoo - remote worker policy:

"We spoke with a source familiar with Mayer's thought process on the matter. Here is what that person told us:

Yahoo has a huge number of people of who work remotely – people who just never come in.
Many of these people "weren't productive," says this source.
"A lot of people hid. There were all these employees [working remotely] and nobody knew they were still at Yahoo."
These people aren't just Yahoo customer support reps. They're in all divisions, from marketing to engineering.
Mayer is happy to give Yahoo employees standard Silicon Valley benefits like free food and free smartphones. But our source says the kinds of work-from-home arrangements popular at Yahoo were not common to other Valley companies like Google or Facebook. "This is a collaborative businesses."
Mayer saw another side-benefit to making this move. She knows that some remote workers won't want to start coming into the office and so they will quit. That helps Yahoo, which needs to cut costs. It's a layoff that's not a layoff.
Bigger picture: This is about Mayer "carefully getting to problems created by Yahoo's huge, bloated infrastructure." The company got fat and lazy over the past 15 years, and this is Mayer getting it into fighting shape.

0 Reply

David Krulac

Mechanicsburg, PA · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes

11y

@Dan D.

Agreed, many seniors are staying in their homes. They are reluctant to move, don't want to go through the hassle of sifting through years accumulation of stuff.

I see this all the time, as a portion of my business is dealing with estate and probate properties. One recent acquisition involved us emptying a house that the deceased owner had lived in for 40 years. After the family came and got what they wanted jewelry, money, guns etc.; we had somebody come and get the usable furniture, and some body else get the metal scrap for salvage. Even with those 3 subtractions, we still filled THREE 30 yard dumpsters.

Simultaneous to that project we also did another where the deceased owner had only lived there 10 years, so it only required TWO 30 yard dumpsters.

We just finished two more acquisitions one required TWO 30 yard dumpsters and another which was a mobile home required THREE 30 yard dumpsters.

The accumulation of stuff and the lack of desire to move and change is keeping many seniors in their homes until they have to leave.

1 Reply

Brad Chandler

Wholesaler And Coach · Springfield, VA · Member since 2011 · 169 posts · 75 votes

11y

Someone told me last week that from 1950 to 2000 DC lost 5% population every 10 years. In 2000, it reversed and from 2000 to 2010 there was a 5% increase. In related news, the DC metro area has really slowed since August - except for DC that remains VERY strong. Everyone now wants to live there!

0 Reply

Mike Curley

W Hartford, CT · Member since 2014 · 32 posts · 8 votes

11y

@ Richard C. I think you make an excellent point. I live in West Hartford and work in Hartford so I know exactly what you mean.

0 Reply

Marc Jolicoeur

Investor · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2012 · 187 posts · 117 votes

11y

Outer suburbs, exburbs, and bedroom communities will thrive or decline primarily depending on factors that affect commuters the most:

- Availability of trains and transit to the employment centers

- Price of oil and gas

- Construction zone delays

In the Minneapolis/St Paul Twin Cities metro, Minneapolis and parts of St Paul are gaining while the outer burbs are not appreciating. Some of the inner ring burbs are expected to have massive increases in population due to their location near several employment centers. I see a lot more MF projects and in-fill or teardown projects than I see new SF developments.

Personally, I commuted 50 minutes twice a day to the exburbs for 15 years while my kids were in school. The outer burbs gave us a good life with good schools and a lawn, but spending 100 minutes a day in the car was a huge waste of time and energy. Last year, I traded my 5 bedroom, 4 bath DR Horton McMansion for an 90 yr old 3/2 home in a nice residential neighborhood in the city. Now my commute is 15-20 minutes and we are close to everything. That is one hour a day we are saving and half the gas.

Preference for city or suburb is very individual and depends a lot on kids and schools so you will see people arguing both ways; but the maintenance costs of infrastructure long term may be the killer for the suburb. Cities and states cannot afford to replace bridges. When they start going down they will certainly prioritize the higher traffic bridges near the city centers and main interstate arteries. They will not prioritize the highway to the suburb 20 miles out of the way.

Stay in the inner burbs near the employment centers. Avoid the exburbs

1 Reply

Matt R.

Sherman Oaks, CA · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes

11y

Originally posted by @Shane Pearlman:

LA county is a bit of an odd bird for a county as it kind of seems that its cultural centers and economic centers aren't physically aligned in the same way as they are in higher density locations like San Francisco. I guess it begets a question, what in the case of LA is a suburb Vs an economic center?

So I come to find out Shane and I went to the same high school. When he went it was called Peninsula and when I went was called Rolling Hills. Why? The place lost so many kids they combined 3 high schools into one and renamed my old school. Closed two high schools in other words. Well the place eventually recycled and has since re opened one or maybe both I think now. In some suburbs that recyling just might not happen again. Btw Rolling Hills sounds way better than Peninsula Shane:) And at least that was the city where it was located with RH. Titans are gone forever now....is your suburb going the way of the Titans?

1 Reply

Jon Loca

Rental Property Investor · Saint Paul · Member since 2014 · 63 posts · 14 votes

11y

@Dan D.

Dan, I agree with you on the working from note you made. In fact, I work from home 2 days every week.

@Dan D. @David Krulac

Dan and David,

Assuming that the baby boomers do stay in their homes, they will die and when they do, I really don't think there will be enough people to buy up the properties available in the burbs. The only way I could not see the above happening is if the population growth exceeds the amount of boomers dying or leaving for other reasons. This is a great topic, I'd be interested to hear what you two think.

1 Reply

David Krulac

Mechanicsburg, PA · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes

11y

@Jon Loca

If baby boomers pass away, that doesn't mean their houses will be torn down, it probably will mean that if demand declines there will be fewer and fewer new houses being built.

Suburbs has different meanings in different parts of the country. In Nashville, and Jacksonville they have metropolitan governments that cover the entire county is essentially one city. But in Pittsburgh, there are 130 different municipalities in Allegheny County. There used to be 129, but one area seceded from another to form their own government.

In Nashville and Jacksonville the city is huge in land area. In Pittsburgh the land area is much smaller. A suburb in Pittsburgh could be a couple miles from downtown. In Jacksonville, you might have to leave the state (and go to GA.) to get to the suburbs.

In the East, the housing stock is much older than in the West. An old community in the East is like from the 1800s, in the West an old community is from the 1950s. Bigger difference. I think that sometimes people think of the suburbs as being a community of McMansions built no older than when a Bush was President. In the East there are close in suburbs that are 100 years old and don't have any McMansions. Here in the state capital of PA., you can be 2 miles from the Capitol building and already be outside the city and into the suburbs.

So part of the difference of opinions expressed here has to do with different perceptions of what exact IS a suburb and how far from the center of town that is. Is it measured in miles or hours?

2 Reply

Shane Pearlman

OP

Rental Property Investor · Las Palmas de Gran Canaria · Member since 2014 · 220 posts · 256 votes

11y

@David Krulac / @Jon Loca - I would bet that if we poll everyone, we end up defining the suburbs by their focus on on a particular asset class, specifically low to mid density residential, to the exclusion of industrial and larger commercial. I don't typically see places with a healthy mix of residential, commercial and small scale industrial called suburbs, no matter what their size or their distance from any formal downtown or large urban center.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburb): A suburb is a residential area or a mixed use area, either existing as part of a city or urban area or as a separate residential community within commuting distance of a city. In most English-speaking regions, suburban areas are defined in contrast to central or inner city areas, but in Australian English, "suburb" has become largely synonymous with what is called a "neighborhood" in other countries. In some areas, such as Australia, China, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and a few U.S. states, new suburbs are routinely annexed by adjacent cities. In others, such as France, Arabia, most of the United States, and Canada), many suburbs remain separate municipalities or are governed as part of a larger local government area such as a county.

How would you define suburbs?

1 Reply

Ray Browne

Washington, DC · Member since 2012 · 40 posts · 13 votes

11y

Perhaps lower gas prices and more efficient vehicles will buffer this but I wonder what the effect of younger folks and families not having cars will have on travel destinations that are not airline or other transit accessible travel hubs.

Specifically places like the upstate New York lake region, northern Michigan, smaller coastal towns in New England, and the Poconos in Pennsylvania. Even larger beach towns like Ocean City, MD have seen new lodging and condominium starts slow.

The explosion in hotel capacity and visits to NYC, Las Vegas, San Francisco, and Miami indicates to me that these urban areas may not only be stealing population from exurban and rural areas but also be a serious threat to some of the small town vacation destinations throughout the country.

The growth of the pied a terre market in the DC area has certaintly grown and it has been a significant trend in new construction in NYC and Las Vegas for the past decade. This has further harmed rural and coastal exurban areas as these urban condominiums have taken the place of many country and shore homes whose maintenance and construction jobs were a backbone of communities in places like Cape Cod, coastal Maryland, and rural Virginia.

0 Reply

Shane Pearlman

OP

Rental Property Investor · Las Palmas de Gran Canaria · Member since 2014 · 220 posts · 256 votes

11y

@Ray Browne You bring up a huge point about the impact of changing transportation infrastructure. It just reminded me of a fascinating talk I heard by the founders of Zip Car about the future of the car. They basically painted a picture of the future (guestimate 15-20yrs) when self driving cars become the norm. Since 90% of your car's time is not in use, the economics are such that, if the on-demand nature of the system was sufficiently dependable, no one would really need to own a car. They would simply pull out their phone and request one. I saw an article by google showing how this would actually be cheaper for the average user.

Its not 100% obvious to me how the will affect the rise or fall of the suburb, but I imagine it will certainly create a new dynamic.

0 Reply

Matt R.

Sherman Oaks, CA · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes

11y

I like that car idea.

My definition is 95% residential and 90% of that SFHs. Where I live, there are high rises, longest retail avenue in the world with Ventura Blvd, apts, condos, dam, river and single family homes.

What do you guys call that?

Tom Petty on Ventura Blvd. Sherman Oaks 25 years ago. Notice the smog.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lWJXDG2i0A

0 Reply

John Moore

House Flipper · East Stroudsburg, PA · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 205 votes

11y

The market in Northeast Pennsylvania appears to be price driven as well as a quality of life issue. The commuter from my experience is investing time and commuter expense in order to obtain affordable housing. I thought the same applied to the metro DC area,that many of the commuters desired more affordable space and a slightly different life style. There does appear in some areas that the "walk to work" market is being developed and attractive to a segment of the market. The availability of convenient, affordable, public transportation is obviously the key to most markets attracting the consumer to our real estate products.

0 Reply

The END of the Suburbs?

The END of the Suburbs?

Most Popular Reply

98 Replies