It all depends on what exactly you mean by the word "city". A lot of the US population is in rural areas or small towns. Their idea of a city is definitely going to be very different from the idea of someone who grew up in NYC, Chicago or San Francisco. Even within those metropolitan areas, ideas may differ between those from the suburbs and those from the city proper.

Personally, I think that a metro/subway system is a good marker of whether or not a place is dense enough to be considered a city. By that metric, the US only has a handful of cities: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland (?!), DC, Los Angeles, Miami, NYC, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and San Juan Puerto Rico (?!).

If you look at a pure density metric of 10k people per square mile at the center of a metro area you end up with a subset: Boston, Chicago, DC, Los Angeles, Miami, NYC, Philadelphia, San Francisco. The City of LA itself has a density of only 8k per square mile but 27 of the surrounding municipalities have a density above the threshold so I included it in the list. Providence, RI happens to also be particularly dense although just below my arbitrary cut-off. There are a few incorporated places throughout the US which are small enough to meet the density threshold but are part of a larger metropolitan area which do not.

Arguments could be made for Atlanta, Baltimore, Cleveland, or San Juan based on the first criterion. Places like Houston, Austin, Seattle, Dallas, Lousiville, Salt Lake City, etc. might be considered by some to be cities. Based on my time there, I would say that Seattle is on the cusp of becoming a city and that this may apply to a lot of other places throughout the US. If the US was a lot less car-centric it might have a lot more cities (based on both criteria).

Narrowing the definition of "cities" certainly helps the title be closer to accurate.

Yes, but those cities don't have the same job markets. Not everybody is a coder or an engineer with skills in high demand in non-metropolitan areas

>those cities don't have the same job markets

Fair enough, but mid sized cities have jobs for plumbers, electricians, government employees, secretaries, marketing people, accountants, college professors, construction, biologists, vetrenarians, etc.

The title, "The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore" is absurd.

But a lot of those professions can't afford rent inside the city and are forced into unwieldly commutes and lose out on the benefits of being in a city

Sure they can, have you never lived in a mid sized city? Those horrendous commutes are more common to large cities that can't support the population demand. Mid sized cities don't have that problem as much.

There are plenty of suburbs within a 10-20 minute driving distance from the city. Also, businesses operate in those surrounding suburbs.

I like mid sized cities. Not too large, not too small, but just right.

I'm baffled as to why this was downvoted. It's a perfectly reasonable opinion.

The average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in San Antonio is $1200 (the seventh largest city in the nation). The median home price is $228k, so with a median income of $51k that means the average person would be paying 21% of their gross income towards housing costs, well within the range of "affordable."

It seems very strange to compare gross income to housing costs and deem a situation 'affordable'. When FICA and Federal income tax is subtracted from that $51k ($9,800)[0], we're left with $41,000 of net income.

I pay around $1600 monthly for a $227,000 house in Austin, so the housing cost would be $19,200 / $41,000 or _46%_ which is absolutely not 'affordable.'

[0]https://smartasset.com/taxes/income-taxes#1DOWfkzhx3

A rule of thumb (admittedly arbitrary) for housing is to keep costs below 30% of gross income. That is why I compared median housing prices against median gross income.

If someone making the median income in a city can afford a median house with 21% of their gross income, yes, I deem that "affordable."

To go back to my example, the family making $41k net annually is paying $10,800 (ish) annually in mortgage costs. They pay an additional $4,781 in property tax annually. That leaves $25,419 annually or $2,100 monthly for other costs and savings.

My example makes plenty of assumptions that won't necessarily hold (after all, I'm assuming averages here). Notably, I'm assuming a 20% down payment and excellent credit. And no, that's not a lavish lifestyle. But it's well within the realm of "affordable" for an average person.

I'll also note that $228,000 is the median price, but a search on Zillow shows >1500 listings for less than $150,000. I saw one listing for 3bd/2ba at $135k within the loop. near decent schools and within 20 minutes driving distance of downtown, the USAA and Valero corporate campuses and the UTHSCA medical center, all major employers.

I don't really see what your example has to do with my point. Yes, Austin is more expensive than SATX. Yes, someone making $51k should not pay $1600 a month in housing cost. But you're making my point for me—housing costs in medium-large cities are not necessarily out of whack average incomes in all such cities, just some markets (like Austin).

Honest question... where does the 30% income/housing ratio come from? I always assumed it was pushed by the housing industry to "con" us into more housing than we need.

That's why I called it arbitrary.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-17/housings-...

I was using it as a starting point.

Excellent link, thank you.

I tend to agree. The bottom line (and very obvious) is that the more spent in any one budget category, the less available for all other categories--housing included. My wife and I shoot for no more than 20% in order to ensure we can meet our other financial goals. We have paid as high as 46% (in San Diego), which simply wasn't workable.

A lot of it is enforced by landlords. Go apartment hunting, and they'll all tell you they'll only lease to you if the rent on the unit is less than 1/3 your gross income.

The whole point of smaller cities is, they are more affordable. Those professions will have a better time of it than in a larger city.

I think there's a tradeoff. Smaller cities should be more affordable, but there is less labor mobility, leading to higher economic risk. If a person finds themselves in even a moderately specialized occupation, and loses their job, there might not be another job for them unless they move to another city.

Thus they either have to deal with periodic un- or under-employment, or manage the risk by building a cash cushion, either of which means a less affluent lifestyle.

But what happens when very few of those professionals can afford to live in the big ones?

The price goes up for folks living there? And then plumbers can afford to live there. Its good old supply-and-demand freemarket principles at work.

Serious question (because I'm ignorant): What sets of skills are in high demand in those 4 or 5 metropolises but nowhere else?

It's less about specific skills (e.g. writing or accounting) being in demand in those places and nowhere else, and more about what kinds of companies are demanding those skills and how much they're willing to pay. Like legodt mentioned in a sibling comment, the most influential and prestigious companies in a lot of industries are pretty concentrated in a handful of big cities.

It's not just that different industries have their hubs - media, design, finance in NYC, entertainment in LA, tech in SF. A whole ecosystem of supporting firms grows around these companies. So the most influential and prestigious law, accounting, and consulting firms tend to cluster in these cities too.

There also are a lot of people who don't necessarily want to spend their entire lives in, say, NYC but think it will be a good career move to get a prestigious name on their resume before going somewhere else.

At this point I think there's kind of a chicken and egg situation where a lot of ambitious, talented people flock to major cities because firms are there, and firms stay planted in these cities because so many talented, ambitious people are flocking there.

Anything in fashion, design, media, etc. Fields that have global distribution for creative work at large scale is what I'm familiar with and unless you are willing to work for a smaller company (I.e. not large consultancy or high profile work), you have to be in a major urban center.

Not sure why people disagree with this answer. There are clearly creative fields where the top jobs and opportunities are indeed concentrated in a specific set of large cities. Probably more so than most other types of fields. More so than tech, for example, web/social/mobile in Silicon Valley notwithstanding.

That said, other industries are geographically concentrated as well. If you have your heart set on working in the oil business, you probably shouldn't set your sights on living in Boston.

Every time I read these threads and nobody mentions Chicago, I smile a bit knowing that my rent isn't going to go up $100/mo for no reason.

It's not even true of NYC; it's true of Manhattan and Brooklyn.

Is it true of LA? That also sounds wrong to me.

LA homeowner here. Short answer is: not entirely true, as written.

The situation is that a vast expanse of the (very large) city of LA, and key enclaves like West Hollywood and Santa Monica (not formally part of LA, but surrounded by it) has had large and steady price increases for the past ~60 months straight. Renters have been priced out of one neighborhood after another.

It has caused a huge upheaval as people who had not noticed the pace of change have had to move to distant neighborhoods, or out of the area entirely. You see a lot more homeless, and there is a political struggle about people living in mobile homes parked at the edges of parks, etc. This upheaval is a hot issue.

But (coming to the point) it is still, barely, possible for middle class people to find homes in LA city. But you have to pay a lot more (say, 400k), and/or accept some living conditions that are marginal. When middle class Anglo families are seriously considering moving to Boyle Heights condos...it's a new thing.

I don't have time just now, but looking at real estate listings for Cypress Park might be informative. This is a tough neighborhood with significant long standing gang activity. Not South LA (aka "south central"), but close. Example: https://www.redfin.com/CA/Los-Angeles/3608-Arroyo-Seco-Ave-9... (sold for 360k last year).

Here is another comp. (Not cherry picking)

450k for a 2+1, 744 sq. ft. -- https://www.redfin.com/CA/Los-Angeles/3618-Arroyo-Seco-Ave-9...

In a neighborhood with regular gang related homicides -- e.g., https://www.theeastsiderla.com/2016/08/one-dead-in-cypress-p...

Our rent went up 7% this year in LA, but our income didn't. The writing is on the wall I think.

In what part of LA? What part of LA would you move to if your rent/income became untenable?

Much of the city of Los Angeles is rent-stabilized, meaning rent can only increase up to 3.5% a year as long as the tenant stays there. But when the move out, the rent can reset to market rates.

I just moved out of a place in Studio City, paying $1200 for a small one-bedroom apartment. It's listed now for $1600, and I'd bet on it filling within 10 days.

So that's a 1/3 increase in rent I was able to avoid by staying in one place for a long while, but if I'd been moving around it would have cost much more over the years.

In the far (semi-rural) reaches of Sacramento now, and happier for it!

Right, I get that. But that's true of every real estate market. The problem in San Francisco is that middle class families are priced out of every neighborhood in the city; their only cost effective options might be in another city.

Is that true of LA? It's only the case if there's no reasonable neighborhood within the boundaries of LA you could move to after an untenable rent increase in your current neighborhood.

For instance: it's obviously not the case that middle class families are priced out of the Chicago market. Chicago is full of neighborhoods full of hours and townhomes and three-flats that span pretty much the whole price spectrum. On the other hand: some neighborhoods that were pretty reasonable 10 years ago (Roscoe Village, or Bucktown) are now so expensive that their demography is changing. That doesn't mean Chicago is pricing out middle class families; it means Bucktown is.

LA is a MUCH bigger city than San Francisco, especially in terms of geography. I'm not sure an meaningful comparison can be made as a result.

There are certainly areas of LA at least as big as the total area of SF where middle class families can not afford to live. There are also areas at least as big as the total area of SF where lower-middle class families are the vast majority of residents.

The cities are just too different to make a meaningful comparison in my opinion.

Right, I get that too. But then: is the article correct? Are middle class families being priced out of LA?

I think the answer is yes, but depends on your definition of affordability.

Median household income for city of LA is ~$60k. Without detailing the numbers, maybe if you're really liberal with mortgage qualification you get a $450k home at that income (house or condo). In a broad Redfin search of the Valley/LA Basin and a bit beyond to the east/south (this includes many cities outside of LA), you have:

Total homes for sale: 4,720 <$450k: 873 (18%) In Safe Neighborhoods: 294 (6%) (I used my own definition of safe, but it's very liberal and includes many places where walking around after dark alone would not be advised, but it's an urban area after all so that's understandable)

Btw, and this is where people say you're not entitled to something, but if you are just talking about single family homes (LA is very single family home-focused) in a safe hood for <450k the number of availabilities drops to 51 homes (that's 1% of inventory).

Lots of other nuances here, but just a broad brushstroke look at the market.

I live in L.A. and as far as I'm concerned, yes they (we) are being priced out. You can live an hour away from your job or in a dangerous neighborhood, but that doesn't really mean the city is affordable.

Won't those "dangerous" neighborhoods likely gentrify as priced out middle class people move to them?

... that's definitely what happens in Chicago...

What's Bayview like in San Francisco these days?

It's just a pointless question to ask if middle class families can live in the city limits (an arbitrary border) in my opinion.

The better question is do middle class families have to live as far away from their jobs in LA as they do in SF, and the answer to that question is increasingly "yes."

Near Hollywood. Have no idea where I'd move, we are already in the cheapest area I consider tolerable with a family.

What about places like Canada? Where your only real options are Toronto and Vancouver. Other places are lonely and small.

Personally I'm into music. Composing, playing shows, going to the symphony, the opera, the ballet. Sure, I could leave Toronto, except now I'm in the middle of nowhere where there are no jobs and no culture. Now what?

I'm sure it's similar for others in the US.

Montreal? Very cheap to live, probably the most cultured city in Canada. I'll admit the job situation isn't great there but that's why it's cheap. Calgary and Edmonton both have top notch symphonies, the world class Alberta Ballet, and burgeoning music scenes. Much cheaper than Vancouver or Toronto.

There are huge, huge affordability problems with Vancouver and Toronto, but they're hardly your only choices.

Exactly. Canada is very diverse and there are plenty of music scenes, symphonies, and other culture centers outside of Vancouver and Toronto. It's like saying the only good places to enjoy culture in the US are New York and LA.

The only time I imagine myself living in a big city again (I'm originally from Queens, NYC) is when I visit Montreal. Beautiful city, efficient immaculately clean subways compared to any city I've been in. If I weren't comfortable in the relatively rural part of the Hudson Valley I'm in, I'd seriously consider it.

Ottawa? More of a town with lots of suburbs than a real city but dirt cheap compared to Toronto or Vancouver. I would say that it is even cheaper than Montreal.

I'm not sure about the music scene but there are a wide variety of both English and French language theatre companies. NAC, GCTC, La Nouvelle Scene, etc. I'm sure the situation is similar for Opera and Ballet.

Montreal slays. Most underrated city in North America IMO.

Montreal.

I'm genuinely curious. Wouldn't a quiet little place be better for your composing work? Or your prefer larger city because of the scene itself?

Just stay out of Canada, to be honest. Our country's best is anothers country's worst.