<< Back to all Blogs
Login or Create your own free blog
Layout:
Home > link du jour: Housing + Transportation Affordability Index
 

link du jour: Housing + Transportation Affordability Index

August 18th, 2008 at 10:25 am

Have you seen this one?

http://htaindex.cnt.org/map_tool

Maps of metropolitan statistical areas that track Housing and Transportation Costs as Percent of Income. Blue areas indicate areas that do not meet affordability standards (housing + transportation greater than or equal to 45% of median income). Cream areas meet affordability standards.

I'm surprised to learn that my area is among the unaffordable. We have postwar houses, trucks, RVs. Not really manicured lawns, few luxury SUVs, no homeowner association - subdivisions. The new Priuses and the Subaru wagons with the Thules and the Coexist bumper stickers are in the even less affordable areas south of us. On the other hand, the affordable areas in our city are the ones with the highest crime rates (burglary, gang violence, car theft).

Then again, I can also understand why the payday lending places are nearby. It's cheaper to rent where I live than to own.

Note to DH, who's reading this: your parents live in one of the few "blue" areas of your hometown. It's a small area, but over a mile away from any other blue area so it's easy to identify.

Posted in link du jour | 3 Comments »

3 Responses to “link du jour: Housing + Transportation Affordability Index”

  1. Joan.of.the.Arch Says:
    August 18th, 2008 at 11:22 am

    I see that if housing alone is considered, many areas are considered affordable, but once transportation is added in those areas can fall into the 45% realm. This especially makes sense to me where people have bought in unincorporated, nearly rural areas where housing may be less expensive but the drives to work may be long. Another thing of interest to me is that almost entirely my central city comes out affordable, while the more typically "middle class" near suburbs do not. Again, that is partly because of the transportation thing. It is ironic because some of those older suburbs were founded along small train lines which decades ago, or even 130 years ago, made commuting cheap. The trains are gone now, though, and one must have a car. Plus the centers for work and commerce are more supersized but dispersed. So in those suburban towns one must drive three or four miles to buy the same groceries that, once, one could walk 1/2 to 3 blocks to buy.

  2. PauletteGoddard Says:
    August 18th, 2008 at 11:52 am

    J.o.t.A, can you tell me why the blue area in your city, south of I-64, is in-city but not affordable? Is it the size of the houses and the costs involved in heating them?

  3. Joan.of.the.Arch Says:
    August 18th, 2008 at 02:44 pm

    I looked at the advanced mode and it looks like homeowners there are paying a lot for their big, beautiful classy old homes, greater than 65% of income. Their transportation distance and expenses are low, so that is not it. Gosh, those really are some nice looking houses there. Streets lined with mature trees, shady gardens front and back, charming old carriage houses turned into guest houses, limestone pillars on the porches, 100+ year old cobble stone driveways.Very urban, but very relaxed and confident feel to the area.... However, the median income level in the neighborhood is $42,000 to $53,000, so I can see that people really are stretching it! Average housing expense of onwers I think was >/= $1700/month. However, there are a lot of renters who might be bringing that median income level down a bit.

Leave a Reply

(Note: If you were logged in, we could automatically fill in these fields for you.)
*
Will not be published.
   

* Please spell out the number 6.  [ Why? ]

vB Code: You can use these tags: [b] [i] [u] [url] [email]