Theres a generational rift that will stop a lot of decaying areas from seeing repopulatin from newer generations.
My wife and I saving to house shop soonish, but one of the primary requirements of our residency will be transit access. We don't like driving, don't like having to own a car, and definitely do not want to have to drive up and down the east coast to visit friends and family. Amtrak access is thus basically required, and anywhere we can avoid buying a car to live is valued dramatically higher than alternatives.
Its a growing sentiment the younger you get, where the veneer of the 50s American dream is more and more eroded and we are realizing humans in the 21st century should be living denser, with public transit, and walkable access to day to day needs, than to live in gated communities without a sidewalk or any human contact.
And 99.9% of US real estate is built up totally in antithesis of this, largely on racist fundamentals dating to the early 20th century.
Like we legit were looking at areas and when talking about just over the DC border into MD the conversation always immediately goes to "yes the properties are a third cheaper, but theres no metro access" and its just off the radar. Pittsburgh is our joke city since it has no usable Amtrak routes out of it (and yes, I know its urban core is nice, but its also tiny and unable to grow).
None of these decaying places can afford the capital investment to redevelop to be walkable and sustainably dense. They already are burdened to maintain a million acres of suburbia that is all tax negative. And nobody wants a "top down" solution that involves displacing millions to redevelop cities so the demographic trends going forward want to live there.
For anyone looking, Philly is actually pretty affordable. Its combined income tax is 6% in the state, the sales tax isn't outrageous, and property costs are a fraction of NYC or DC. Its definitely near the top of our list considering how unaffordable the parts of Portland, Seattle, and Baltimore with transit are.
My wife and I saving to house shop soonish, but one of the primary requirements of our residency will be transit access. We don't like driving, don't like having to own a car, and definitely do not want to have to drive up and down the east coast to visit friends and family. Amtrak access is thus basically required, and anywhere we can avoid buying a car to live is valued dramatically higher than alternatives.
Its a growing sentiment the younger you get, where the veneer of the 50s American dream is more and more eroded and we are realizing humans in the 21st century should be living denser, with public transit, and walkable access to day to day needs, than to live in gated communities without a sidewalk or any human contact.
And 99.9% of US real estate is built up totally in antithesis of this, largely on racist fundamentals dating to the early 20th century.
Like we legit were looking at areas and when talking about just over the DC border into MD the conversation always immediately goes to "yes the properties are a third cheaper, but theres no metro access" and its just off the radar. Pittsburgh is our joke city since it has no usable Amtrak routes out of it (and yes, I know its urban core is nice, but its also tiny and unable to grow).
None of these decaying places can afford the capital investment to redevelop to be walkable and sustainably dense. They already are burdened to maintain a million acres of suburbia that is all tax negative. And nobody wants a "top down" solution that involves displacing millions to redevelop cities so the demographic trends going forward want to live there.
For anyone looking, Philly is actually pretty affordable. Its combined income tax is 6% in the state, the sales tax isn't outrageous, and property costs are a fraction of NYC or DC. Its definitely near the top of our list considering how unaffordable the parts of Portland, Seattle, and Baltimore with transit are.