If you don't want to mess with an Excel file at the NAHB's Web site, here's the HTML version of the Housing Opportunity Index: 4th Quarter 2006 By Affordability Rank listing.
The list contains 202 cities/metro areas. Here are the top few or most affordable housing areas. 13 of these top 16 areas are located in either Ohio or Michigan.
1. Springfield, OH
2. Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL
3. Bay City, MI
4. Mansfield, OH
5. Canton-Massillon, OH
5. Indianapolis, IN
5. Lima, OH
8. Lansing-East Lansing, MI
9. Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA
10. Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, MI
11. Battle Creek, MI
12. Flint, MI
13. Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI
14. Cumberland, MD-WV
14. Monroe, MI
14. Toledo, OH
The least affordable housing areas:
187. Madera, CA
187. San Francisco-San mateo-Redwood City, CA
189. San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA
190. Stockton, CA
191. El Centro, CA
191. Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA
193. Modesto, CA
194. Santa Barbara-Santa Maria, CA
195. New York-White Plains-Wayne, NY-NJ
195. Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA
197. San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA
198. Merced, CA
199. Napa, CA
200. Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA
201. Salinas, CA
202. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA
Rankings for other Ohio areas:
20. Dayton
22. Akron
29. Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor
34. Cincinnati-Middletown
37. Sandusky
49. Columbus
Ranking for other Michigan areas:
21. Grand Rapids-Wyoming
27. Warren-Farmington Hills-Troy
47. Ann Arbor
posted by jr at 01:54 P.M. EST on Fri Feb 23, 2007 #
Not surprising seeing as how stagnant our housing market is - ya gotta have a job before you can buy a house.
The wife'd love us to move north over the border, but we'd have to sell our house first. There's a nice one on our street that's reasonably priced, been on the mkt for over a year now.
posted by billy at 02:05 P.M. EST on Fri Feb 23, 2007 #
The average income in Toledo is almost 59k a year?! That seems really high. Given 40hr work weeks that's almost $28 an hour. Does this seem right to you all?
Maybe I'm in the wrong field of work lol.
posted by jshriver at 02:57 P.M. EST on Fri Feb 23, 2007 #
The average income in Toledo is almost 59k a year?!
Its actually the median income, which can be drastically different from a true "average."
Median = half the people in the area earn more, half the people in the area earn less.
posted by mom2 at 03:22 P.M. EST on Fri Feb 23, 2007 #
Hrm that makes more sense, so a lot of people probably make around 15-20k a year, then very few in the 30-60 range, but then a good portion (Dr, Lawyer, Politician) make 70k+..
Wealth distribution is definitely an interesting field.
posted by jshriver at 03:35 P.M. EST on Fri Feb 23, 2007 #
I think the differences are due to Toledo vs Metro Toledo.
NAHB data for metro Toledo:
- Median family income : $58,900
- Median price of a home : $105,000
Toledo info at City-Data.com:
- Population (year 2000): 313,619. Estimated population in July 2005: 301,285 (-3.9% change)
- Median household income: $32,546 (year 2000)
- Median house value: $75,300 (year 2000)
The above census info is for only the city of Toledo. The data from the NAHB that's used in its affordable housing report is for the Toledo metropolitan area.
Note the beginning of the Blade story:
"Metro Toledo ..."
Toledo's population is around 300,000 while the Toledo metro population is 600,000. The Toledo metro area includes Lucas, Fulton, Ottawa, and Wood counties, and I believe all of these counties are used in the affordable housing report.
posted by jr at 03:57 P.M. EST on Fri Feb 23, 2007 #
I think it's humorous how housing data can be interpreted two completely different ways depending on the labelling of a story. In this case, cheap appears good since it's "affordable." However, in most other real estate rankings Toledo would be put near the bottom because it would rank low when it comes to investment growth in real estate.
Hrm that makes more sense, so a lot of people probably make around 15-20k a year, then very few in the 30-60 range, but then a good portion (Dr, Lawyer, Politician) make 70k+..
I doubt it would be spread like that. In population statistics there are very few things that are bimodal (having to humps) as opposed to a smooth bell-shaped curve. This is also household income, so it would be the combination of all wage-earners in a household.
The metro number seems to be a very healthy income level. That's actually higher than what I thought it would be. If I had to guess previously I would have guessed in the $45-50,000 range.
posted by HeyHey at 05:22 P.M. EST on Fri Feb 23, 2007 #
Also of note is that foreclosure data isn't a good barometer for an area's overall economic health. If it were then why would Toledo be lower on the list than Columbus? Or Cleveland lower than Atlanta.
Toledotalkers and Swampbubblers often use Toledo's foreclosure data to "prove" Toledo's economy is in the crapper. However, by most measures Columbus has a healthier economy than Toledo, and Atlanta has a far stronger economy than Cleveland. Yet Columbus has more foreclosures per capita than Toledo and Atlanta more than Cleveland. While economic health probably plays some role (Ohio and Michigan cities seemed to be near the top) there are clearly more forces at play than just economic growth.
posted by HeyHey at 05:30 P.M. EST on Fri Feb 23, 2007 #
Home "affordability"... or the market sucks. All depends on how one wants to spin it.
I vote the market sucks.
posted by radiovet at 01:35 P.M. EST on Sat Feb 24, 2007 #
Re: the 40hr work week.
Who works 40 hrs anymore except for maybe a union worker? I do at least 55, if not more.
posted by radiovet at 01:37 P.M. EST on Sat Feb 24, 2007 #
Atlanta' economy is certainly more healthy than Cleveland. Perhaps it's the age old story too many people buying too much home than they can afford.
Based on income my wife and I qualified for a $185k home loan. No way we could afford the monthly mortgage, AND deocorate.
MANY people are doing 0 down home loans, and end up house poor.
posted by radiovet at 01:40 P.M. EST on Sat Feb 24, 2007 #
Who works 40 hrs anymore except for maybe a union worker? I do at least 55, if not more
At both of my most recent employers (and also my husband's employer), the 40 hour work week was the norm. Occasionally if there were immediate deadlines or things that came up at the last minute, a person might put in a few extra hours. But it definitely wasn't the typical week.
The only co-workers I had who consistently put in more than 40 hours either felt like they had something to prove or weren't productive enough during the work day to get their stuff done in an 8 hour day. Guess I was lucky to land at employers who were a little more family friendly and understood that people had lives/obligations outside of work.
posted by mom2 at 11:38 A.M. EST on Sun Feb 25, 2007 #
he only co-workers I had who consistently put in more than 40 hours either felt like they had something to prove or weren't productive enough during the work day to get their stuff done in an 8 hour day.
And in your view, putting in some extra hours to get ahead and invest in your career is not a viable concept?
posted by billy at 04:29 P.M. EST on Sun Feb 25, 2007 #
And in your view, putting in some extra hours to get ahead and invest in your career is not a viable concept?
Fortunately, the VP in my area at one employer actually looked down a little on people who consistently put in 50-60 hour work weeks - thought it made them look inefficient if they couldn't get their work done in a standard 40 hour week. (Of course, there may have been projects that would occasionally require work beyond 40 hours, but again it was not the norm - just special projects here and there. And if you did have to put in a lot of extra hours for a project, you were generally "rewarded" by either getting to leave early the following week or take an extra long lunch one day the following week, etc.)
At another previous employer, I tried a few times to stay late and actually was told to go home...anything that needed to be done would still be there in the morning. (of course, the expectation was that you were finishing necessary work and meeting deadlines during your standard day...which of course I did.)
Like I said, I have been fortunate enough to work for employers who understood that people had lives/obligations outside of work. (even before I had kids) Taught me a lot of lessons. I have no interest in working 50-60+ hour weeks - it would take too much valuable time away from my children (time that you can't get back!), from other family members, from my friends, from my interests/hobbies. A burned out employee is not a productive employee, and fortunately many employers are starting to realize that!
posted by mom2 at 07:34 P.M. EST on Sun Feb 25, 2007 #
I had an interesting conversation with a realtor the other day about the state of the Toledo housing market. He indicated that the average sales price was down due to the 1 in 60 homes being in foreclosure, but that this inflated the number of homes sold giving a false appearance of real estate liquidity. Personally, I don't feel that Toledo has much room to suffer from depreciation. Our housing prices have always been much more reasonable than other parts of the country. If a housing bubble were to occur, Toledo would probably not be effected much, and this is supported by the reports that Toledo is one of the most affordable places for housing.
posted by slickone at 11:12 A.M. EST on Mon Feb 26, 2007 #
Not challenging you slickone - but is there anywhere we can get information on the 1 in 60 houses in Toledo being in foreclosure?
You shocked me with that number. I realized there was a problem, but wow!
posted by katie82640 at 05:21 P.M. EST on Mon Feb 26, 2007 #
Meant other than the Toledo Blade....I see the graph above. But there has to be a more reliable resource to research the numbers in Toledo than the Blade.
posted by katie82640 at 05:22 P.M. EST on Mon Feb 26, 2007 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
