# inner city vs subburb



## sofia403 (Apr 6, 2016)

Why the property worth more closer to downtown core? is it mostly because of the better infrastructure and proximity to other places?
Im asking because I own a house in a "good" neighbourhood what considered to be inner city and close to university and hospital and shopping centers We have about 7 schools around my house. But my house is old and always requires upkeep. 
For the same price i can buy above average house, nearly new in 10-15 yo community in a house that probably doesnt need as much work and with attached garage and less taxes to pay. Just puzzles me - is it just the land value that appreciates? Yet still many people choose the old house compared to new.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

As they say in real estate........ location, location, location.

Large metropolitan cities have both high end neighborhoods and ghetto areas and every city is different.

You can buy homes in downtown Detroit right now for dirt cheap prices, but nobody wants to live there.

In our little city of London, Ontario there are noticeable price differences between the north, south, east, and west areas.

There is no logical reason for the price differences anymore. Good people live in all the different areas.

It is nothing more than snob appeal that has carried over from years ago, I think.

The suburbs are great if your employment is located in or near the suburb. Otherwise commuting is expensive and takes a lot of time.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Location is important for resale value but also buy for the lifestyle you want. Work, kids amenities proximity to family and so on. Your own house should be for the life you want to live if possible and investing in it should be a close second. Of course if you can make great money flipping or using your house for business and so on that would be different.


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

1)Generally speaking, inner city equal shorter commute. Mngt and exec types can spend less time on commute and more time in office
2) more character with mix of housing, mature trees and landscaping.
3) no ongoing construction of neighbourhoods in the burbs where all the houses look the same.
Of course this depends on upkeep of inner city area. Some areas are run down with very small housing, crime issues etc. If lots are big enough, these areas often undergo gentrification due to the above reasons.


----------



## birdman (Feb 12, 2013)

For the most part I believe property close to the downtown core is more central to all parts of the city whether it be North, South, East or West. If you live in the suburbs and need to go to the far side of town it can be quite a trip. When I lived in Vancouver I lived in a good area close to downtown where I worked and the bus ride was 20 mins. I was then transferred to Richmond in the suburbs and the drive was still only 20 mins. If I lived in the suburbs the commute would have been close to an hour. Thats 80 mins a day or over 7 hrs a week (one day a week in the office) saved. Yes, its expensive (it wasn't when I worked) 
and the houses are older but it also has many advantages which has been mentioned previously.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

Location, location, location. Close to amenities and services.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

For me personally, it's about construction. I find houses built before 1970 to be better built than more modern ones. Heck, I own places around 100 years old and they are still in good shape, much better in fact than places built in the 80's and 90's that I own. I can guarantee you the newer places will not last to be 100 years old.

That being said, I'd bet the main reason for where people like to live is location bias. I've met hundreds if not thousands of tenants over the years. If they were born in a city, then they usually have a location bias based on where they were raised. North Enders would usually never move to the south side, south siders wouldn't be caught dead in the north end, etc.

The only tenants who don't usually care are those who come from outside the city, as they have no bias.

Ironically, for someone like me who buys everywhere, I've seen areas where you can find the exact same house, on a similar street, in opposite areas of the same town. If I picked you up and dropped you in front of each you couldn't tell a difference, the neighbours even act the same, yet people still believe one is better than the other based solely on location. Location bias is taught to most people from the beginning...

People have an inherit need to feel superior to others, trashing those "other areas" is just one of the silly things people do unconsciously to make them feel superior.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Downtown for singles, suburbs with good schools for the families, rural areas for retirees.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

mordko said:


> Downtown for singles, suburbs with good schools for the families, rural areas for retirees.


That has been the stereotype but it is changing...as it should. We really could take some lessons from Europe. I spent a good part of my early retirement as a community representative on zoning and development issues in ''developing" West Calgary. It was like pulling teeth to get our community to accept a wide range of houses and commercial/retail businesses to create a 'liveable' community with an appropriate density instead of row upon row of detached houses with double car garages. There is nothing more sterile than most of the burbs that have been built in the last 50 years.


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

AltaRed said:


> . There is nothing more sterile than most of the burbs that have been built in the last 50 years.


Couldn't agree more. Cookie cutter houses in varying shades of beige.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

AltaRed said:


> That has been the stereotype but it is changing...as it should. We really could take some lessons from Europe. I spent a good part of my early retirement as a community representative on zoning and development issues in ''developing" West Calgary. It was like pulling teeth to get our community to accept a wide range of houses and commercial/retail businesses to create a 'liveable' community with an appropriate density instead of row upon row of detached houses with double car garages. There is nothing more sterile than most of the burbs that have been built in the last 50 years.


That's true, new N American suburbs can be an eye sore too. Calgary is kinda small anyway. We brought our kids up in the older part of Oakville and the quality of life and education has been miles better than what downtown Toronto can offer.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A big problem with a lot of old inner city homes are things like black mold and crumbling foundations.

They are great for people who buy them, strip them out and renovate to modern standards.

But to buy and live in them as is...........nothing but a money pit.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

sags said:


> A big problem with a lot of old inner city homes are things like black mold and crumbling foundations.
> 
> They are great for people who buy them, strip them out and renovate to modern standards.
> 
> But to buy and live in them as is...........nothing but a money pit.


Totally agree. My wife and I will eventually move back to the city I think, in a smaller place. I would like a condo with a small terrace but the prices are high now. I'm looking for a correction in the next 5-10 years. If that doesn't happen, we'll move back anyhow - just to a smaller place to suit our needs; maybe 1000 sq. ft. - 2 bedroom place.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

In our city the downtown buildings are being gutted and renovated for businesses or converted to condos.

New condo units are becoming popular in the downtown area, but there are still no grocery stores, schools, or much shopping other than the "entertainment" businesses like pubs and restaurants. Young professionals and retirees mostly.

We have one area in the city which became really popular over the past few years. I can remember when it was considered a dumpy area of the city. It was well known as a "blue collar" area years ago.

The area is appealing to many now because of the eclectic mixture of home designs and small village feel within the city.

We looked at a home there and met with a realtor friend. He talked us out of it........and buying anything in that part of the city.

He told us all the foundations leak and are crumbling. If we wanted to buy a home in that area, he recommended buying one that was already completely gutted and remodeled, but they were selling for well above our price range.

I don't know about "downtowns". In so many cities I have seen the downtown areas as run down areas.

Not so maybe in Toronto or Vancouver...........but it is true in many cities.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Inner city is a different animal than 'downtown'. I'd consider anything within a 2km radius to be 'inner city' and in many places that would be a 5km radius. 1-2km is easily walkable, 3-5km is bikeable. I know of at least 3-4 sections of 'inner city' Calgary that are very liveable with a wide variety of shops, a supermarket, et al. That said, we moved west post-retirment for a better climate and a slower pace of life.


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

sags said:


> As they say in real estate........ location, location, location.
> 
> Large metropolitan cities have both high end neighborhoods and ghetto areas and every city is different.
> 
> ...


Actually, there is a traditional reason for property values in the east to be lower, and that's actually across Canada, and it has to do with the Westerlies. Since the predominate winds move from west to east, the industrial sections are always placed in the eastern part of a city to avoid having the pollution move over the whole city. This actually can still be seen in London as the new industries are in the far east areas around the Veteran's Highway and West Dorchester. 

This is pretty much all I remember from my grade 9 Geography course.


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

sags said:


> In our city the downtown buildings are being gutted and renovated for businesses or converted to condos.
> 
> New condo units are becoming popular in the downtown area, but there are still no grocery stores, schools, or much shopping other than the "entertainment" businesses like pubs and restaurants. Young professionals and retirees mostly.
> 
> ...


Seems like the city council is still as incompetent as I remember them. I get an earful from my father every time I go home, and apparently his new target is a proposed light-rail project. Unless it changed recently, the only people I knew that took the LTC in London were those who couldn't afford a car and students. Maybe if the city ever grows it will need a new mass transit, but we're just getting light rail here in Ottawa, and that's at about 3 times the size with a lot of people taking the bus.


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

AltaRed said:


> Inner city is a different animal than 'downtown'. I'd consider anything within a 2km radius to be 'inner city' and in many places that would be a 5km radius. 1-2km is easily walkable, 3-5km is bikeable. I know of at least 3-4 sections of 'inner city' Calgary that are very liveable with a wide variety of shops, a supermarket, et al. That said, we moved west post-retirment for a better climate and a slower pace of life.


Maybe it's just my perception, but normally, I've only seen the term "inner city" as a reference to a run-down slum area. I've never hear of a place such as Midtown Manhattan referred to as the "inner city", but it's on the southern side of Central Park, while Harlem is opposite it on the north. In addition, Columbia U is on the eastern side of Harlem, and again, I've never heard of it referred to as being in the "inner city".


----------

