17 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Someone would actually do that? I've been living in the same condo for 24 years. And I've been alive for 53 years and lived in only five homes (one of them was a college apartment).

 

I lived in four different places in college (two were dorm rooms), a place in grad school, and three different places in my 20s after grad school. I lived in four different cities in three states during that time. I loved moving around. But now that we own a house, I can't imagine wanting to move again. It's big enough for us and we love the neighborhood. If we ever move again, we're going to miss this house a lot.

Edited September 8, 20204 yr by DEPACincy

On 8/22/2020 at 3:42 PM, GCrites80s said:

That's not saying much, unless the Zestimate algo has gotten a lot better recently.

 

You have to look at the Zestimate range. The smaller it is, the more sure they are about its accuracy. The study said that the ranges were pretty accurate. But some of the ranges are very large.

10 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

You have to look at the Zestimate range. The smaller it is, the more sure they are about its accuracy. The study said that the ranges were pretty accurate. But some of the ranges are very large.

From talking to someone that was a coder at Zillow, from what I gathered is that basically the more recent the home was sold, the easier it is, which makes sense. If something sells for 300k one year, the market increases 10% yoy, it's fairly straightforward to guess that a 320-340k range is where it'll fall.

 

But if you're like my parents, where they're prepping for retirement and potentially downsizing and they are the original owners for 23 years, the range is like 290-390k because they have no idea what state it's in, what value may have been added over the years, if the expensive rooms (kitchens and baths) are still the crappy developer quality rooms the place was built with or updated, etc.

 

Which all makes sense. But yeah, zillow's estimates are really only useful for something that sold recently and hasn't really changed in any major ways since it's last sale. Anything else and it's a crapshoot.

2 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

I lived in four different places in college (two were dorm rooms), a place in grad school, and three different places in my 20s after grad school. I lived in four different cities in three states during that time. I loved moving around. But now that we own a house, I can't imagine wanting to move again. It's big enough for us and we love the neighborhood. If we ever move again, we're going to miss this house a lot.

 

I hate change. I almost had a panic attack a few weeks ago when we were approaching the day of replacing our 35-year-old refrigerator. And after we replaced it, I knew why the panic attack was justified....my 53-year-old body was physically beat up and it took me three days to recover from moving out the old fridge of a very tight kitchen and putting in the new one (that part was relatively easier). If I don't move in the next five years, I'm probably going to die in this condo. I doubt my body could recover from a move after that.

On 8/26/2020 at 8:30 PM, GCrites80s said:

I wonder if people are going to start doing in-town moves just because they are bored and bored with their dwelling.

 

There might be some rare birds that will do that, but I think that will be a vanishingly small part of the market in even if the supply of housing increases and people like that would have more options to choose from at softer prices.

 

Moving is an expensive and time-consuming process, even just moving across town, not to mention the 6%-ish that goes to the agent every time.  It's not something most people will do out of boredom.

 

Also, beyond the financial reasons (which are daunting enough), social reasons will also keep families in place.  A single or childless couple might be able to move out of boredom, but a single person's better bet for that is to simply rent and let their apartment lease lapse.  Right now, school proximity is a big deal for my family and one thing that keeps us where we are even as we're straining the walls of our current house.

Lately, I've been seeing the term "workforce housing" meaning rents pegged to area median income - most recently in news about the Lincoln Apartment.  I believe "affordable housing" has a legal definition under HUD enabling legislation. 

 

Does workforce housing have a similar legal basis or is it just the apartment owner's pledge, perhaps subject to change when the lease is up for renewal?

I think workforce housing is really just meaning "not luxury". I don't believe it has any AMI requirements tied to calling it that from grants or loans. I think you generally just accept some lower finishes and appliances than what is typically built, and in turn pay a slightly lower rent.

41 minutes ago, Dougal said:

Lately, I've been seeing the term "workforce housing" meaning rents pegged to area median income - most recently in news about the Lincoln Apartment.  I believe "affordable housing" has a legal definition under HUD enabling legislation. 

 

Does workforce housing have a similar legal basis or is it just the apartment owner's pledge, perhaps subject to change when the lease is up for renewal?

Workforce housing is not a defined term like "affordable Housing" or "HUD Income Based Housing"

 

Workforce housing is just a new term to desribe market rate housing that caters to the renter by necessity. Typically, workforce housing is a Class B- to Class C property. The tenants tend not to be college educated or are working in a trade type profession. Healthcare workers such as LPN's lower level government workers, warehouseman, construction, exterminators, etc. They will typically earn between $25k-$50k per year. These individuals are not on a voucher and pay out of pocket. They are often in the unit for multiple years and they typically are not looking to purchase a house. They will always be renters. 

1 hour ago, Dougal said:

Lately, I've been seeing the term "workforce housing" meaning rents pegged to area median income - most recently in news about the Lincoln Apartment.  I believe "affordable housing" has a legal definition under HUD enabling legislation. 

 

Does workforce housing have a similar legal basis or is it just the apartment owner's pledge, perhaps subject to change when the lease is up for renewal?

 

You are right that "workforce housing" isn't really a thing for HUD programs, but there are many city and state programs around the country that do restrict units at higher rents than the typical HUD or LIHTC ranges, say, 60-120% of AMI (i.e., higher than traditional LIHTC rents), so I also wouldn't say it's something that usually relies on the landlord's unenforceable promise.  That said, for Lincoln Apartments, I'm pretty sure this is just the developer's own policy, not anything required by any funding source or incentive program.

 

A lot of people consider the term "workforce housing" slightly offensive, because many, maybe most, occupants of LIHTC units, especially in high cost markets, are employed.  A key thing to keep in mind is that the AMI tiers are defined with respect to median family income, not household income, so are actually pretty high in some areas, like NYC, Seattle, Boston, SF, or where you live (DC, right?). In these kinds of areas, a three person family in a LIHTC unit might be earning over $60K.  Newly developed "workforce housing" in these areas may be below market, but affordable only to people earning $70, $80, or even $100K, depending on the AMI tier at which it's restricted.  

Edited September 24, 20204 yr by StapHanger

In case anyone is wondering, it took four weeks and two price reductions (but the realtor told them their neighborhood was HOT!) but my brother's house is now under contract for $235k w/4k in repairs.  So the realtors will split $14,000, the former homeowners are doing $4,000 in repairs, it probably cost at least $4,000 to prep the house for the sale with new carpet, painting, etc., and another $1,000 to rent a pod and physically move.  Let's do the math - it quite literally cost $25,000 to sell the house.  Yeah, they're coming out well ahead because there is no federal capital gains tax to pay, but still...it cost $25,000 to sell the house. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, StapHanger said:

A lot of people consider the term "workforce housing" slightly offensive, because many, maybe most, occupants of LIHTC units, especially in high cost markets, are employed.

 

Like Lou Reed once sang: "Some people like to go out dancing / And other people, they gotta work..."

1 hour ago, jmecklenborg said:

So the realtors will split $14,000...

 

I've been blasted for this opinion by my friends and family that are realtors... but I've always thought the standard 6% is a giant scam. It doesn't seem to me that it takes twice as much effort to buy/sell a $300,000 house as a $150,000 house, so why's the fee twice as much? No one can give me a straight answer.

 

 

My understanding is that "workforce housing" is defined as housing meant for people who have decent jobs (often in the service industry) and make too much to quality for any type of subsidized housing, but probably can't afford "luxury" market rate housing targeted at higher income earners. Usually there is a push to build this type of housing in neighborhoods where there are a lot of bar/restaurant jobs, and the goal is to make it so that people who work service industry jobs in a neighborhood can actually afford to live in those neighborhoods, given that neither the subsidized or luxury options are accessible to them.

1 hour ago, Ram23 said:

 

I've been blasted for this opinion by my friends and family that are realtors... but I've always thought the standard 6% is a giant scam. It doesn't seem to me that it takes twice as much effort to buy/sell a $300,000 house as a $150,000 house, so why's the fee twice as much? No one can give me a straight answer.

 

 

 

I have heard that in the very expensive markets (NYC, Los Angeles) that realtors will negotiate lower percentages, however, I personally know a guy who earned a $30,000 commission selling a $1 million property here in Cincinnati within months of become a realtor.  There aren't many real estate transactions in Cincinnati over $1 million so I'd be surprised if there is an accepted lower percentage for high-value properties.  I have heard that in Canada (I assume mostly Vancouver and Toronto) many people become realtors just to collect the commission on the sale of their primary residence.  Plus, in more Canada fun facts, there is a 1% federal tax on real estate transfers throughout the country.  Obviously, that hasn't been close to enough to discourage flipping and other speculative activity.  

 

If you are a real estate bottom feeder like myself and peddle in super-cheap stuff like vacant lots and vacant homes, an agent sometimes represents both the buyer and the seller, and so collects the full 6% themselves, albeit just 6% of a $10-20,000 transaction.  

 

2 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

I have heard that in the very expensive markets (NYC, Los Angeles) that realtors will negotiate lower percentages, however, I personally know a guy who earned a $30,000 commission selling a $1 million property here in Cincinnati within months of become a realtor.  There aren't many real estate transactions in Cincinnati over $1 million so I'd be surprised if there is an accepted lower percentage for high-value properties.  I have heard that in Canada (I assume mostly Vancouver and Toronto) many people become realtors just to collect the commission on the sale of their primary residence.  Plus, in more Canada fun facts, there is a 1% federal tax on real estate transfers throughout the country.  Obviously, that hasn't been close to enough to discourage flipping and other speculative activity.  

 

If you are a real estate bottom feeder like myself and peddle in super-cheap stuff like vacant lots and vacant homes, an agent sometimes represents both the buyer and the seller, and so collects the full 6% themselves, albeit just 6% of a $10-20,000 transaction.  

 

The standard on commercial is still 6% but the caveat is that much of the commercial market is off market or the broker keeps it to their internal buyer list so they negotiate a cheaper commission. However, even with that most of the million dollar commercial deals still have at least a 4% commission or higher

5 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

I have heard that in the very expensive markets (NYC, Los Angeles) that realtors will negotiate lower percentages,

 

They will in the DC area, very reluctantly, but there's lots of competition. 

 

Sales prep and commission costs are one reason the tear-down people are doing so well.  I  live in Chevy Chase, a streetcar suburb of 100 year-old houses much like Cleveland Heights or Lakewood.  It's very desirable as a location but it's got the pluses and minuses typical of 1910 construction.  If you want to sell, the builders promise cash, as-is condition, 30-day closing, and no commission. Their offer will be about 8-10% under the market, but it's tempting when you balance time, prep cost, hassle, and commissions.

16 hours ago, taestell said:

My understanding is that "workforce housing" is defined as housing meant for people who have decent jobs (often in the service industry) and make too much to quality for any type of subsidized housing, but probably can't afford "luxury" market rate housing targeted at higher income earners. Usually there is a push to build this type of housing in neighborhoods where there are a lot of bar/restaurant jobs, and the goal is to make it so that people who work service industry jobs in a neighborhood can actually afford to live in those neighborhoods, given that neither the subsidized or luxury options are accessible to them.

 

The first part is definitely true: "workforce housing" is, in some sense, the next economic rung above "affordable housing."  I believe the target SES is up to 150% of area median income, as opposed to affordable housing which usually tops out at 80%.  It doesn't necessarily have to be or need to be in an area with a lot of bar/restaurant jobs, but proximity to employment is definitely a factor.  For example, we could consider building workforce housing in East Akron near Summa City Hospital intended for the hospital workforce, but it wouldn't be intended for the doctors (maybe residents).

 

I can't say too much about upcoming projects, but just as a general strategic matter, the CDC of which I sit on the board, which has traditionally done both LIHTC affordable housing projects and build-to-sell urban infill, has considered branching out into workforce housing that would be larger multifamily rentals as part of a "plugging the hole" strategy between affordable housing and homeownership.  This isn't a huge issue in Akron because housing prices here aren't ridiculous anyway, but we have at least a small issue with people we serve that could be homeowners someday "graduating" out of affordable housing as their economic circumstances improve but still not being quite ready to take the plunge for a mortgage just yet, for any number of reasons.  Since (super genius fact) it's easier to get a mortgage when you make closer to 150% of area median income than less than 80%, the thought would be to at least have the path open for someone to go from affordable housing -> rental workforce housing -> mortgage on a home in the $100k range.

I am hearing that many if not most of the big banks stopped financing rental properties (either SFH or 2-4 units) at some point this year that need loans under $250,000.   That explains why so many duplexes and fourplexes are languishing on the market here in Cincinnati and no doubt across the state.  

 

 

7 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

I am hearing that many if not most of the big banks stopped financing rental properties (either SFH or 2-4 units) at some point this year that need loans under $250,000.   That explains why so many duplexes and fourplexes are languishing on the market here in Cincinnati and no doubt across the state.  

 

 

I've been looking in Akron for the better part of a year and there are certain zip codes where sellers are getting asking price on the same day they hit the market.  

This condo in Over-the-Rhine just lowered its list price to $145k.  It sold in 2016 for...$142.5k.  So they're going to spend about $9,000 selling it and therefore lose some money.  This person probably could have rented since 2016 and come out ahead. 

https://www.redfin.com/OH/Cincinnati/1432-Race-St-45202/unit-404/home/78953419?utm_source=myredfin&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=instant_listings_update&riftinfo=ZXY9ZW1haWwmbD0zNzMyMTE1MyZwPWxpc3RpbmdfdXBkYXRlc19pbnN0YW50XzE1JmE9Y2xpY2smcz1zYXZlZF9zZWFyY2gmdD1pbWFnZSZlbWFpbF9pZD0zNzMyMTE1M18xNjAzMjg0NTk1XzImdXBkYXRlX3R5cGU9MyZzYXZlZF9zZWFyY2hfaWQ9NDM0NTE5NzcmbGlzdGluZ19pZD0xMjI3OTY5OTMmcHJvcGVydHlfaWQ9Nzg5NTM0MTkmcG9zaXRpb25fbnVtYmVyPTA=

 

Yet we keep hearing from coastal Leftists about the "property ladder" and how everyone who owns property always makes money because of systemic racism, or something.  

 

 

That's my old condo I owned from 2014-2016. My bank covered all my closing costs at time of purchase and my buyer covered all of my closing costs at sale. Got a 5% realtor fee as well when selling. Happy with my ~$16,000 profit I made in the 2 years I owned it. Looks like I got out at the right time.

 

My buyer wasn't from Cincinnati and was never planning on living in it. They rented it out for a decent profit per month and are probably looking to reinvest elsewhere since OTR studio prices stagnated. They could have made more investing in other fields in the last 4 years, but that's the luck of the draw.

Edited October 21, 20204 yr by jmicha

Hmm so OTR studio prices have stagnated but 1-3BR continue to appreciate still? Or is it more like 2BR+?

1 minute ago, GCrites80s said:

Hmm so OTR studio prices have stagnated but 1-3BR continue to appreciate still? Or is it more like 2BR+?

 

Tons of the 5-10 year-old condos sit on the market for a month or more.  The whole issue with condos is that people want brand-new condos.  They don't want "dated" condos.  Even if you tear out the kitchen and bathroom, the building is still "dated".  

 

 

I can't even tell if something was built in 2006 or 2020, interior-wise. Everything after 1998 or so all looks just white to me.

Edited October 21, 20204 yr by GCrites80s

18 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

I can't even tell if something was built in 2006 or 2020, interior-wise. Everything after 1998 or so all looks just white to me.

 

I predict a strong early-2000s beige resurgence if Biden takes office.  Beige Back Better.  

"Welcome to VH1 Daily Life of a Rocker From the '80s 2005"

On 10/14/2020 at 7:32 PM, Cleburger said:

I've been looking in Akron for the better part of a year and there are certain zip codes where sellers are getting asking price on the same day they hit the market.  

 

I just had lunch with someone who sold her home in Wadsworth in one day with multiple offers over asking.  It's crazy.

 

That said, I've also been looking at a couple of properties that I've had "saved" on Zillow for 6+ months.  Makes me wonder what's wrong with them.

40 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

 

 

That said, I've also been looking at a couple of properties that I've had "saved" on Zillow for 6+ months.  Makes me wonder what's wrong with them.

Check to see if they were built over native American burial grounds

32 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

That said, I've also been looking at a couple of properties that I've had "saved" on Zillow for 6+ months.  Makes me wonder what's wrong with them.

  

I just checked and there have been 120 price reductions in Hamilton County in the past 7 days.  I'm sick of hearing about how homes are flying off the shelves - yes, homes that have been renovated and "check all the boxes" sell quickly, but there are tons of homes that sit and sit and sit.  

 

Cincinnati (and I assume most of northern Ohio) has tons of 2-bed, 1 bath homes, homes without central air, attic bedrooms, etc., that are unpopular with wealthy families with children.  

 

Here is one such example in Cincinnati - it's been on the market for months.  It has the old radiator heat, old kitchen, attic bedrooms, old bathrooms, etc., but it's on one of the nicest streets in the city.  There might be a foundation issue because we do see some suspicious cracking, but foundation issues usually aren't as serious as they appear.  

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1674499/3305-Morrison-Ave-Clifton-OH-45220

 

 

 

2 hours ago, BigDipper 80 said:

Ok this is not just beige but very very aggressively beige! It is like they managed to even get beige into the darker colors as well like the beige is an infectious agent. And I complain about the whites and grays of today...

 

Also why is furniture now like couches either very mid 20th century small and uncomfortable Danish Modern or huge overdone bulky sectionals? Is there no middle ground?

12 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

  

I just checked and there have been 120 price reductions in Hamilton County in the past 7 days.  I'm sick of hearing about how homes are flying off the shelves - yes, homes that have been renovated and "check all the boxes" sell quickly, but there are tons of homes that sit and sit and sit.  

 

Cincinnati (and I assume most of northern Ohio) has tons of 2-bed, 1 bath homes, homes without central air, attic bedrooms, etc., that are unpopular with wealthy families with children.  

 

Here is one such example in Cincinnati - it's been on the market for months.  It has the old radiator heat, old kitchen, attic bedrooms, old bathrooms, etc., but it's on one of the nicest streets in the city.  There might be a foundation issue because we do see some suspicious cracking, but foundation issues usually aren't as serious as they appear.  

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1674499/3305-Morrison-Ave-Clifton-OH-45220

 

 

 

This is actually a very cute house and really that upstairs could be a master bedroom with bath making it 3 beds and two baths(making the study downstairs into a bedroom maybe?). Too bad it does not have central air and heat. The kitchen and bathrooms could be remodeled along with parts of the basement maybe with not too much of a problem. 1,800 square feet is not that bad really for a small family.

Edited October 21, 20204 yr by Toddguy

16 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

 

Here is one such example in Cincinnati - it's been on the market for months.  It has the old radiator heat, old kitchen, attic bedrooms, old bathrooms, etc., but it's on one of the nicest streets in the city.  There might be a foundation issue because we do see some suspicious cracking, but foundation issues usually aren't as serious as they appear.  

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1674499/3305-Morrison-Ave-Clifton-OH-45220

 

 

 

 

 

The problem is that Clifton isn't the only game in town for young families anymore. You can get a nice house with central air, new kitchen, new bathrooms, etc. for around the same price in College Hill and still have a walkable neighborhood. With the resurgence of College Hill, Northside, Westwood, etc. why pay the premium to be in Clifton? It makes sense if you have all the same amenities, but not if you're going to be the worst house on the block.

17 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

  

I just checked and there have been 120 price reductions in Hamilton County in the past 7 days.  I'm sick of hearing about how homes are flying off the shelves - yes, homes that have been renovated and "check all the boxes" sell quickly, but there are tons of homes that sit and sit and sit.  

 

Cincinnati (and I assume most of northern Ohio) has tons of 2-bed, 1 bath homes, homes without central air, attic bedrooms, etc., that are unpopular with wealthy families with children.  

 

Here is one such example in Cincinnati - it's been on the market for months.  It has the old radiator heat, old kitchen, attic bedrooms, old bathrooms, etc., but it's on one of the nicest streets in the city.  There might be a foundation issue because we do see some suspicious cracking, but foundation issues usually aren't as serious as they appear.  

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1674499/3305-Morrison-Ave-Clifton-OH-45220

 

Well, in fairness, I have an idea what's going on with the ones I've saved, too, and it's the opposite phenomenon from what you're saying: They're 5,000+ sf places in the $600k+ range.  No matter the market, those have generally taken longer to move, in part because there are fewer comps, so agents are tempted to set "reach" prices at the start to see if they get any takers, then come down when the places aren't snapped off the market right away.  But they still usually come down gradually and consistently enough until they do get a taker.  This isn't what I'm seeing.  Sellers and their agents have enough remaining confidence that, after a few initial price reductions, they're leaving them for many, many months without coming down further.

 

We're not seriously going to be in the market until 2022, but I'm just following things now to see if I can get a sense of trends over time.

19 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

  

I just checked and there have been 120 price reductions in Hamilton County in the past 7 days.  I'm sick of hearing about how homes are flying off the shelves - yes, homes that have been renovated and "check all the boxes" sell quickly, but there are tons of homes that sit and sit and sit.  

 

 

The plural of anecdote is not data. 

 

The fact of the matter is that the Cincinnati market has the fastest-selling homes in the entire country. The average home sits on the market for only 17 days. Obviously some are way longer, and some go under contract the day they come on the market.

25 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

This is actually a very cute house and really that upstairs could be a master bedroom with bath making it 3 beds and two baths(making the study downstairs into a bedroom maybe?). Too bad it does not have central air and heat. The kitchen and bathrooms could be remodeled along with parts of the basement maybe with not too much of a problem. 1,800 square feet is not that bad really for a small family.

This house needs a $150k renovation. Ive done several just like it, and each one needed 100-150k. Gets you new mechanicals and finishes. So the house needs to be priced at 100-125k.

40 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

Ok this is not just beige but very very aggressively beige! It is like they managed to even get beige into the darker colors as well like the beige is an infectious agent. 

 

Is there no middle ground?

 

 

 

Today's digital cameras and especially camera phones are optimized to images being displayed on screens, not as prints or in a printed publication.  It seems like beige doesn't look as good when rendered digitally as it did in analog.  I really wonder how much the change in tastes has to do with how spaces are rendered by today's cameras and viewing methods.  

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, TheCOV said:

This house needs a $150k renovation. Ive done several just like it, and each one needed 100-150k. Gets you new mechanicals and finishes. So the house needs to be priced at 100-125k.

That is a more than I realized. 

16 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

 

 

Today's digital cameras and especially camera phones are optimized to images being displayed on screens, not as prints or in a printed publication.  It seems like beige doesn't look as good when rendered digitally as it did in analog.  I really wonder how much the change in tastes has to do with how spaces are rendered by today's cameras and viewing methods.  

 

 

 

Lol, what? How do you come up with this stuff?

 

All beige looked just as bland then as it does now. It was popular simply because it was cheap and easy to make that "look" work. So you could make your crappy mcmansion look like the earth-toned mansion of some celebrity you saw who lives in SoCal.

 

Then people remembered they don't dislike color and got back to it.

3 hours ago, jmicha said:

Lol, what? How do you come up with this stuff?

 

When I was a kid one of the local TV stations aired the "Sunday Showcase of Homes" where they would give one minute to each house, scroll through maybe 10 photos, and a narrator would lovingly hype up each place over mood music.  You were looking at printed 35mm photographs that were then videotaped and projected through your 1986 Zenith TV.  With that combination, it was impossible for white or anything close to it to indicate any texture or definitive hue.  I mean, you'd *probably* be able to pick out a popcorn ceiling, but the exact color of the décor, and especially anything getting close to white (or black, although that was rare) would be nebulous.    

 

FFWD to now.  Apple and the other camera phone makers have made photographing in a mixed lighting interior as simple as pushing a button.  It took years of expertise in the past to do that, plus tons of light shaping tools, gels, lens filters, and maybe a photographer switching out the house's light bulbs for daylight-balanced bulbs or bulbs of the same color temperature and wattage to get images of similar quality.   

 

THEN, the photographer's image was manipulated by a graphic designer to suit the paper stock of a particular publication - ranging from newspapers all the way up to high-end catalogs and magazines.  A newspaper was gray so white could never have any impact.  High-end magazines gradually shifted from hi-gloss in the 1980s to semigloss in the 90s and 2000s to an increasing use of matte by the 2010s.  The best printing quality was reserved for coffee table books.  

 

The screens on the modern phones (since about 2014 with the iPhone 5) are capable of rendering subtlety in the whites and grays with a high contrast range that was impossible to do economically in the past.  There is a corollary in flat screen TV's.  Plus there is an entire channel devoted to hour after hour of people fixing up houses and looking for them (in the 80s there was only the afore-mentioned Sunday Showcase of Homes and This Old House on PBS).  Plus, the exact device which enables people to browse listings so easily can also photograph an interior and broadcast it to the world in one second, and for free.  

 

People are being inundated with far more and far higher-quality images of interiors than ever before.  The medium is without a doubt affecting design trends and the market's demand for a "perfect" house.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And all the wallpaper and paneling seen pre-Y2K looks too busy and noisy on the phone. Plus that stuff slows down construction and remodeling, so blankness looks "new" and detail looks "old".

5 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

And all the wallpaper and paneling seen pre-Y2K looks too busy and noisy on the phone. Plus that stuff slows down construction and remodeling, so blankness looks "new" and detail looks "old".

 

 

People used to wallpaper one room with one theme and another with another theme.  The themes and colors "clashed" by today's standards but nobody thought about it that way at the time.  An individual room's theme reflected that room's aspirational use.  The now-ubiquitous open floor plan motivated people to create a more consistent theme throughout the house.  The overall theme of a house today is "maximize resale value" by looking "creative" in just the right way, but not actually doing anything because you like it that way.  

 

I remember a friend whose mom was the biggest Barbara Streisand fan of all time whose entire house was two things: shrine after shrine to Barbara Streisand OR little statues of rabbits.  

 

 

 

Our guest room when I was a kid theme was peacocks. Peacock wallpaper and tailfeathers in vases. If you think just some solid color paint is expressing yourself the 20th century has something to show you. If a dwelling was plain inside that meant it was a rental.

1 hour ago, GCrites80s said:

Our guest room when I was a kid theme was peacocks. Peacock wallpaper and tailfeathers in vases. If you think just some solid color paint is expressing yourself the 20th century has something to show you. If a dwelling was plain inside that meant it was a rental.

 

Back in the late 1920s and 1930s, poor people started unironically decorating their homes with mass-produced advertising, which was a new thing at the time. 

 

 

3 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

And all the wallpaper and paneling seen pre-Y2K looks too busy and noisy on the phone. Plus that stuff slows down construction and remodeling, so blankness looks "new" and detail looks "old".

I don't like the white "blankness" that is so common. It has gotten to the point of looking clinical and sterile, almost an expensive austerity. Not a tchotchke to be found sitting somewhere, no pictures except maybe a small collage of nondescript stuff in matching frames in a predetermined arrangement. The look can be very soulless. I am always amazed at seeing the inside of someone's home posted somewhere and it is very nondescript furniture, often just a few oversized pieces, and not much else-blank walls and a lack of anything showing any personality or "sense of place"-instead of feeling or looking like a home where people live there is a sense of transiency, as if the people living there might as well be refugees. And this is not just found in places where people rent.

^And what gets worse with that as time goes on the materials and skills to do anything interesting become less and less available. Pretty soon everybody gets stuck with painted drywall and trim even if they don't want it because those are the only things that exist. You have to desperately look for a house that hasn't been touched for longer and longer periods of time which gets tougher every day. People that get houses like that on accident can't leave well enough alone and try to make it look like it was built yesterday.

^is wallpapering a lost art?

^Ehh, wallpaper can stay gone for all I care. It is such a pain in the ass to both install right and remove. However, to go along with the above assessment that people want everything to look "perfect" and modern/crisp, the one thing I CANNOT stand which lots of flippers are doing here in CLE, (and buyers are inexplicably buying) is covering up original hardwood floors with that cheap glue down fake vinyl plank! Like seriously WTF. I am sorry, but there are very few hardwood floors which can't be saved with a small investment. Flippers are just cheaping out and I can see why I guess since people are buying it!

Quarter-inch drywall over bad plaster 

I think the overarching theme of 20th century American home décor was a rustic or cozy countryside motif, whereas sometime in the early 2000s it all shifted to "urban sophisticated", including bringing the industrial loft clichés into detached suburban single-family housing.  I think the proliferation of Ikea throughout the United States is one of the big reasons, since mainstream furniture stores started selling "Ikea-ish" stuff in the 2010s.  

 

The big problem is that it caused a total collapse in the value of American antique furniture and decorations.  All of the ornately handcrafted prewar stuff is now basically worthless.  Meanwhile, the modernist dresser that I reluctantly accepted from my grandparents in 2008 or so when they moved to a nursing home could probably fetch $1,000 today.  The thing looks lightweight like Ikea furniture but it's built almost as sturdily as antique furniture.  It could probably support a 100-gallon aquarium.