real estate, gas, and I'm going to have to stop reading Seattle Bubble

[walkitout]

Here's the post that has done me in:

http://seattlebubble.com/blog/2008/07/07/beating-a-dead-horse-gas-prices/

This is the third time the author of this blog has hammered on some article that describes people who _are in fact_ moving from a long commute to a short commute.

Here's the article:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008036634_housegas07.html

It's actually a pretty good article about a _working couple_ who lived together in _Kirkland_ but both worked in Seattle, and who decided to buy a townhome in the Roosevelt neighborhood. Again, many of my readers are in/from Seattle and thus familiar with it -- but others are not. Roosevelt, FWIW, is an _awesome_ neighborhood a little bit north of the U-District with good access to freeways, great bus service, mostly single-family homes switching over to multi-family (think Ballard a few years ago), with decent schools, a Whole Paycheck as well as more moderately priced groceries, a smattering of restaurants, etc.

What it is not is on Capitol Hill. I don't know _why_ the author of Seattle Bubble concludes the couple is buying on or around Capitol Hill (which would be prohibitively expensive even taking a huge hit to the lifestyle in terms of # bedrooms/square footage, etc.). The article clearly states Roosevelt, altho I suppose you actually have to skim down to the bottom to discover this.

A very, very superficial check at real estate prices confirmed what I suspected: Kirkland is _more_ expensive than Roosevelt, unless it's a wash. This would be because of historical perceptions of school quality (Seattle Public had a very, very nasty rep there for a while) that, if they were true, aren't any more.

So. A couple of people decide to move closer to their jobs, in a neighborhood with great services, which will probably be slightly cheaper than where they were commuting from. And the idiot who lives in Kenmore thinks that this won't "pencil out". [ETA: It was uncalled, petty, small-minded and mean of me to refer to The Tim from Seattle Bubble in this manner. I apologize. He responded quite handsomely in the first comment below.]

Yeah. I'll go waste my spare time reading the comments at Calculated Risk, instead. If I need Seattle real estate info, I can always read Rain City. I added my corrections in a comment; I'll check back one more time to see if this had _any_ impact on the author. Otherwise, I'm afraid he's just a wack job whose particular hangup is no longer all that unique (since everyone by now seems on board with the idea that real estate in and around Seattle has crested).

Comments

The Tim here

[(Anonymous)]

I updated the post with a correction.

However, perhaps you didn't notice, but the anecdotal couple in the story is moving from _renting_ in Kirkland to _buying_ in Roosevelt. You seem to be focused on comparing _buying_ in the two neighborhoods, which was not the situation presented in the Times article.

Median SFH price in the North Seattle area that includes Roosevelt was $425k last month. Figure that the median townhome price is around 70% of that, so $300k. The PITI on a $300k loan, generously assuming they put 20% down would be around $1,900 a month. And don't forget that most townhomes have association dues between $150 and $200 a month. Let's call it $2,000

I didn't have to look hard at all to find 2 and 3 bedroom apartments for rent around Kirkland for $1,500-$1,600 a month. Two drivers going from Kirkland to Seattle daily in cars that get a cruddy 20mpg would spend $225 TOTAL in gas for a month. (~50 miles daily * 20 work days = 1,000 miles / 20mpg = 50 gallons * $4.50 per gallon)

I stand by the statement that unless they're taking a huge square footage hit, they'll be spending more in additional housing costs than they save in gas.

Re: The Tim here

[walkitout]

Now _there's_ an utterly fair-minded response from Tim. Thank you! And I apologize for calling you "the idiot who lives in Kenmore"; that was wholly uncalled for.

I did, actually, recognize they were moving from renting to buying. I assumed (and this may or may not have been called for) that they were "ready to buy" and had "decided to buy" in this market, and the decision was buy where they were vs buy elsewhere (closer in/better commute). They have rental options in Roosevelt (and in other nearby, good city neighborhoods) at rates comparable to the ones you mention in Kirkland. But I'll play along anyway, because I think it doesn't matter.

There is more to gas than what is spent commuting to work (I know; I've been retired for almost a decade -- and I still spend money on gas). While Kirkland (depending on where you are in it) has some highly walkable areas, in general there will be driving in Kirkland. Roosevelt, on balance, I would argue is more highly walkable (for errands, entertainment, etc.). This is what I was getting at in my comment that they might well be able to get by on one car, thus saving thousands -- maybe 10 or more -- a year that way, over and above any gas savings. It's also worth noting that your "cruddy 20 mpg" is ever so slightly above the national average for mpg (at least, according to someone I referenced a few posts back in my blog). Your assumption that they can carpool is unjustified; they can time shift or whatever with public transport from Roosevelt easily. I don't know if they can share a vehicle over the bridge. Here's how I'd do the gas math for two drivers moving from Kirkland to Roosevelt. Treat Kirkland as national average (13600/yr miles so 1133 per driver per month).

1133 miles / 20 mpg = 56ish gallons * 4.50 = $250ish per driver, call it $510 for the pair of them, every month.

What kind of a discount does Roosevelt buy them? A lot of that depends on whether they wind up driving to Kirkland a lot to visit favorite restaurants/shops/friends, or if their friends all live in Renton or Lake Stevens, or whatever. But if Roosevelt is Their Dream Home and they never leave except to bus it to work, they can probably ditch a car and save half the gas (plus all the other costs of owning a car). On those rare occasions they need two vehicles, there's always FlexCar (assuming it is still called that) or renting something or whatever.

Let's say that the gas savings pays their association dues. Then they need to somehow be saving the rent difference in Kirkland vs. the $1900/month (which might actually be optimistically low, FWIW). And let's go further and say they can get a comparable rental in Kirkland for $1500 (your low end). Can they save $400/month by not paying (a) parking downtown for two vehicles, (b) insurance, tax, licensing on a vehicle I assert they can get rid of if they really picked their location correctly and three bus lines sounds like they did and (c) the payment they are no longer making on that second vehicle if currently financed OR the money they should be saving for a replacement vehicle?

I don't think they're taking a hit at all. I think they're paying very close to the same amount every month, once they've made appropriate adjustments. And presumably, owning rather than renting is worth _something_ to them. If only because it means they can redo the kitchen when they've got more money burning a hole in their pocket (heck, that's why I first bought a condo).

ETA: They don't even have to get rid of the car to see some of these savings if they make arrangements with their insurer to get the discount for not-driving-to-work (or driving less than x miles/week to work), no longer have to pay for parking downtown.

ETA2: Roosevelt vs. Cap Hill makes a substantial difference in how much you're going to pay for a place. Altho if I were trying to live close to Seattle Central, I'd be looking to rent/buy in the CD because it's hella cheaper than either, is very, very walkable/busable, and has unbelievable freeway connectivity for when you do feel like driving. There are some problems with the CD (do NOT let your toddler forage freely in the parks), but the hookers and dealers were relatively easy to steer clear of a couple years ago.

Re: The Tim here

[jsl32.livejournal.com]

actually, kirkland to seattle is 30ish miles roundtrip (to downtown seattle). just a data point from a kirklandian.

Re: The Tim here

[walkitout]

My primary experience of Kirkland is from going to martial arts in a neighborhood I believe is called Rose Hill (Miller's Martial Arts Academy, FWIW) for about five years (yeah, that non-work commuting thing ;-). Since I was in my car most of the times I was in the area, I have no mortal clue how walkable Kirkland really is. What's it like?

And has it gotten any less weird crossing that busy street where they at least used to have the little red flags for you to carry as you crossed?

I remember the KCLS branch library being nice. IIRC, it had a parking garage, which at the time seemed weird, but has since become relatively common.

Re: The Tim here

[jsl32.livejournal.com]

a lot of jobs pay for parking OR bus fare, so i'm not sure that is always a factor in this town. i wouldn't count it as savings, necessarily, since it often is essentially an employer benefit in many, many, many cases.

also, carpooling across the water is very easy to arrange, so gas wouldn't necessarily be as high as your estimates. i think in many respects, it's not always 'cheaper' in seattle city limits by default.

(i haz a livejournal, but i am here from seattlebubble)

Re: The Tim here

[jsl32.livejournal.com]

most of kirkland is walkable, though not quite to u district levels (although the u district is unusually walkable itself, really). i like it a lot and may well buy in the area after a few years have passed. there are a lot of streets with flags, but people just stop for you regardless.

it's the borders between towns that are spotty re: bus service and walkability. kirkland/kenmore border is pretty much semi-rural, for example.

Re: The Tim here

[walkitout]

I saw you had a livejournal -- I enjoyed reading the last few posts, but it looks like you blog elsewhere more. Neat stuff, tho. Welcome!

The parking vs bus fare (pay both, either or neither) is pretty variable; hard to calculate that one. The article said one of the guys has a 1996 Camry, so he's presumably getting closer to 30 mpg than 20 mpg, and he's filling what appears to be a 15 or so gallon tank three times a month. The article quotes him saying, "We sit in traffic forever" but it is not clear whether they sit in the car together with each other, with other carpoolers, etc. In any event, one of the two has a monthly gas cost of $210, closer to The Tim's estimate than mine in dollars -- but implying closer to mine in miles. Nice washout!

The fact that one is described as a student and employee of SCCC implies probably no one is paying for their parking or buying them a bus pass. The other is described as a student; ditto.

I don't think I would go so far as to say it's always cheaper to live within the city limits than without, either for Seattle or elsewhere; as numerous people noted over on SeattleBubble, not all jobs are in the city. I do think that a relatively long-term trend (suburbs clearly cheaper, maybe not in time, but in money) has (started to) reverse recently.

Re: The Tim here

[walkitout]

Thanks!

I wandered over to walkscore.com and entered some addresses for yucks.

45th and 15th (fairly close to ground zero U District): 98/100
(That's my college, so I know the ground pretty well; it's been a long time, but I have friends in the neighborhood, and I've stayed in a hotel there a couple times in the last few years. It is crazy walkable.)

70th and Roosevelt (which I would consider close to the heart of Roosevelt): 88/100

And then I let it pick for Kirkland, WA (which usually will land in the middle of a named town): 75/100

So, all really good for walkability.

My last Seattle apartment at 23rd and Jackson in the CD (where two drivers got by with one car and almost never drove it anyway): 85/100

My condo on 15th on Cap Hill, where I almost got rid of my car: 62/100 (I'm still completely puzzled by this).

Where I live right now: 14/100 (and it only does that well, because it doesn't realize that a coffee shop it knows about went out of business 7 or so years ago).

Where I'm thinking of moving to, so I'm walkable/bikeable to the commuter rail to Boston, and walkable/bikeable for my partner's job and hypothetical future jobs: 45/100 for one of the houses we lust after, and 23/100 for another. FWIW, the _second_ of those two houses would be better for everything we're interested in in the next decadeish than the first of those two, which says something interesting about walkscore and its hypothetical ambulator. Partly this has to do with which roads are a little too dangerous to bike on regularly.