I came in to post Oakland as well. Compared to SF it’s less expensive and has fewer cranky SUV driving blowhards. In 25 years all of the cool artsy types who moved there in 2011 will be having the last laugh. Seriously.
“City block” nothing, you can buy whole sports arenas!
New Orleans. It has a ton of beautiful old houses, and the French Quarter is absolutely unique. It sucks now because the government is ridiculously corrupt and incompetent, but that appears to be slowly changing.
That shocked me. I thought I’d seen the depths of poor Detroit’s economic collapse, but that shocked me.
Anywhere 50 feet above sea level. I’m planning on some major global warming.
Yes, though Baltimore doesn’t count as either Rust Belt or Northeast. And in any event, while I agree about those regions as a whole, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some individual cities within them that rebound.
Might not happen to Baltimore (whatever magic worked in New York hasn’t rubbed off in nearby Newark, for example, so it’s all a crap shoot…), but if I had some spare money lying around and the patience to wait it out, that’s still where I’d probably place my bets.
And good call about Flagstaff…
The Australian property market (in general, but particularly in the capitals like Sydney) is vastly overinflated and it’s already impossible for many to purchase homes now, especially first home buyers. I doubt the market could handle any further dramatic increases in property values.
Flagstaff is a good answer. I was thinking of American Sunbelt/Western cities that are currently in the 500k-1m range. Among my WAG’s would be Raleigh, NC, Provo-Spanish Fork, UT, and Colorado Springs, CO.
Pyongyang.
Hey, it happened to Hanoi…
Denver is awesome. I’d like to think that any future investment here is smart because we are IT, baby.
:: does a danvur dance ::
Those megachurches and the USAF base* are* money makers…meh.
If this heat map is to be believed, I think Denver is a lovely place to buy a house and settle. 
But who knows. Some people think this place is becoming a shithole and they’re flying to the (extra-)burbs. Fort Collins, CO, is definitely gorgeous, but I personally think the University and the size puts a damper on things.
I most certainly would not settle in Baltimore or DC or Detroit. I don’t care how cheap it is. I’ve heard enough horror stories form friends who grew up there. (Well, okay not DC: all my friends were outside of DC.)
I thnk Washington DC will continue to see growth in its real estate market, particularly as traffic outside of the city continues to become more and more nightmarish.
Agreed. There are still large swathes of the city that haven’t yet gentrified (or finished gentrifying) - they’re as cheap or cheaper than many parts of Baltimore, but without the Baltimore-DC commute. I don’t really track house/condo prices, as I’m not in the market, but I know that apartment rentals in Anacostia (for example) are far, far cheaper than they are in the Southwest Waterfront, and that’s just two metro stops away. One might laugh at the idea of Anacostia hosting a property boom - my friends laugh when I suggest visiting the Frederick Douglas House in broad daylight - but it wasn’t long ago that white-collar professionals considered the Southwest quadrant a no-go area. Five years, maybe ten. Today, most of my white-collar professional friends live there.
In fact, I’d expect to see Anacostia gentrify before some of the other parts of the city with less-dodgy reputations. Good amounts of green space, and easier access to the Beltway than (say) Brentwood.
But, anyway, with regard to Baltimore: Unless there’s a major business boom in that city, I wouldn’t expect to see property values go up that far there on the strength of DC commuters. There just aren’t that many places in DC that are less attractive than Baltimore.
That’s what I think as well- I’ll go a little further and say that in many cities, the close-in (~10 miles out or less) suburbs from the 1940s through the 1970s are where it’ll be nice to own land. They have relatively large lots and large houses compared to living in an apartment in the central districts, but still not so far out that fuel would be a big cost for people who could afford to live there. Many of these areas have remained mid-high income, and will continue to do so, as well as gain in price.
Detroit, Flint and even Pontiac.
Gotta nuke the first from outer space.
Anacostia is undergoing a mini-boom right now. The Uniontown Bar & Grill and Big Chair Coffee shop have opened within the last few years. I’ve been following a few blogs based out of there and the gentrification process seems to be starting. The prices there aren’t all that cheap right now.
Conceptcion, Chile. (Gorgeous scenery, large amount of natural resources, 11th/183 in economic freedom, less corrupt than the U.S., according to Transparency International, less crowded than either Santiago or Valparaiso.) Chilean Dopers, feel free to talk up your country.
Mauritius. (high literacy rate, low taxation, 12th/183 on economic freedom, tropical climate with not too many tropical storms, somewhat corrupt (5.4, Chile was 7.2, more is better)) . At the ass-end of nowhere, but that might be a plus.
I’ve not been to either of those places, but they sound interesting.
And when/if the trollies go in, it will really sky rocket. There are stretches along the river with amazing views.
In about 1988, a friend of mine bought a five bedroom house with a shop, a liveable (just) basement and a large garden. It was right by Victoria Park in Hackney, London, and he paid £50,000 for it. It’d be worth easily two million now.
London’s not going to stop increasing in price. Within London, Woolwich might be a good bet - it’s not that far from the centre and is really run down and relatively cheap, but is also getting a lot of regeneration for the olympics.
I was thinking of that since in 25 years it might become a habitable climate. But what will they do for a state government?