Posted on 01/17/2005 9:19:04 AM PST by Little Pig
Why is property so expensive in Alaska? I am vaguely considering a job up there, and was looking at housing costs and YE GADS! Houses less than 1000sq/ft, on 0.10 acres, for nearly $200,000? What's up with that? Is it just Anchorage, or what? I can't imagine that housing is that scarce, is it?
Don't know if it's the scarcity of housing, of just the cost of living.
My sister worked on a salmon boat in the late 70's, early 80's, and she told me eggs were about 5 bucks a dozen even back then.
$200,000? That is cheap. Try looking at real estate in NJ.
Alaska has been a historically expensive place to live, starting with the gold rush.
Or California.
We be the blue bookends :(
Any info you can help Little Pig out with?
200,000 is a bargain. Try Massachusetts.
I thought Alaska was always expensive because of the (relatively) high pay, no taxes, and the yearly check from the oil tax fund.
I recall looking around in Wasilla a few years ago, prices seemed about the same as Massachusetts where I lived at the time.
Second point. It gets REAL COLD in Alaska in the winter. Insulation needs to be ten times better in a house there, than a house here. If you lived in an Illinois house in Anchorage, you would turn into a Popsicle in January.
You have a low cost option. Land 30 miles from Anchorage is nearly free. Cut your own trees. Build your own house. If you have the time, the skill, and the energy.
Bottom line: living in Alaska is a whole bunch different from living in the Lower Forty-Eight. Learn the differences. You may choose not to go, if you will not last when you get there.
Congressman Billybob
I know about the temperature problem, and I realize it would increase the cost of housing construction, and I also am aware that some of the reason for the tiny size of houses is that it is cheaper to heat a small place. I was more referring to the cost of the property as a whole, since there are (relatively small) undeveloped properties for sale in the same general area for large sums of money as well. As you say, land just a few miles outside of town is cheap. I didn't know the price curve would be so steep closer to town.
I appreciate the admonishment about building supplies (that's why I posted this, after all: to get more info). I didn't realize that they were THAT industry-poor up there.
I used to live in Mass. I know stuff is expensive there, but then, Mass has several contributing things: Scenic/Historical areas, Close to Boston/Cape Cod, generally high standard of living WRT infrastructure, and the big one: limited land availability. While Alaska's land is a little more inaccessible, there is a LOT more of it (even when you subtract out the various parks). It is also a less desirable place to live for many.
I would think that would tend to LOWER the cost of housing, since less people would want to live there (Hawaii is a different case, since the environment there is so benign, except for the whole living-on-an-active-volcano thing, certainly much more pleasant than Alaska in most peoples' minds).
I think $200,000 is outrageous for what you describe.
It's worse in other areas also. My daughter & her hubby are stationed at Clear, AK. They moved into Fairbanks - 100 miles away - because they could find nothing decent at a price they could afford. They are now renting 1/2 of a new duplex for $1350 monthly.
It is 20 below today, but that is not unusual. Sky clear for the second time this year, and the aurora is somewhat active to the south--means there was a solar flare. There was a February a decade ago where the warmest temperature the entire month was 40 below. It's not so bad if you don't have to deal with machinery.
Cost of living is about 10% higher here. There are no houses available for purchase, but there is plenty of land. Buy a lot, build your own like everybody else. Driving is annoying since the traffic is heavy where you want to go, there is only one road, and nobody knows how to drive.
There is no industry. Without gasoline this entire state would stop cold in three days. Pity those who would need to get out just for mere survival then and don't want to walk the 2000 miles.
Without gasoline most states would shut down in 3 days. I'm not sure I understand the second part of your post. Do you mean "pity those who, if a disaster were to hit Alaska, needed to get out of the state"?
True, one woulodn't need to walk 2000 miles to get back to survivable climates. One could build a raft and try to float back to Seattle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.