Durin g the housing boom of 2001 through 2006, the prices of single-family homes and condominiums shot up to amazing levels. I remember wondering, once the median sales prices of existing homes raced past the $200,000 mark, how were most people in the United States going to afford a home?

Now that the housing market is in the midst of a huge slump, the average cost of a home hasn’t been rising nearly as fast. But that doesn’t mean that U.S. housing, on average, is cheap. Far from it. According to the National Association of Realtors, the median sales price of existing homes in the second quarter of 2008 came in at more than $206,000.

But there are affordable homes out there, if you know where the look. The secret, of course, lies in searching out cities and towns that few others considered destination areas.

BusinessWeek has an interesting story about this here.  The story features a couple whose combined yearly income is only $33,000. Yet, this couple owns a home, and doesn’t worry much about making their mortgage payments. That’s because the home only cost them $48,000. The home has three bedrooms, a full basement and central air conditioning. It’s also located in a town that few would consider a hip or exciting place to live, Youngstown, Ohio.

Finding an area of the country where housing prices didn’t skyrocket during the residential boom is the key to finding truly affordable housing. There are plenty of such municipalities. They may not be as “exciting” as New York City, Los Angeles or Chicago. But to some people, low mortgage payments are plenty excitement enough.

I read a disturbing story in my hometown paper the Chicago Sun-Times on Monday morning. According to a report from the Corporation for National and Community Service, Chicago ranked only 37^th among 50 large cities in the percentage of adult residents who volunteer their time to serve worthwhile causes.

According to the corporation, Chicago has an average annual volunteer rate of 25.6 percent, with 1.8 million volunteers serving just more than 186 million hours each year.

That sounds like a lot. But it’s not, considering that the national volunteer rate is 26.2 percent.

Now, my home city did rank higher than Miami, which ranked 50^th out of the 50 major U.S. cities included in the corporation’s poll. Miami only had a volunteerism rate of 14.5 percent.

But certainly Chicagoans can do better. We’re a major city filled with talented and dedicated individuals. We should be topping the volunteer rankings, not lagging in the bottom half.

Just look at all the volunteer opportunities in residential real estate alone. Is there a home in your neighborhood that needs a new paint job, maybe one owned by a senior citizen who can’t afford to hire painters? Why not organize a clean-up day for the house and put together your own crew of volunteer house painters?

Maybe there’s an empty lot in your neighborhood filled with debris. Worried that it’s bringing down property values? Then do something about it. Organize a volunteer cleanup crew.

And don’t forget, there’s always Habitat for Humanity.The fine people who run this charitable organization are always looking for volunteers to help build new housing for the needy.

Of course, all this doesn’t apply only to Chicago. There are volunteer opportunities in every city, town or unincorporated area in the country. And remember, anything you can do to improve your neighborhood – whether on a volunteer basis or not – will only help the value of your own home.

It’s a tough residential real estate market out there. But that isn’t stopping Donald Trump from making money.

Trump International Hotel & Tower, Trump’s Chicago hotel/condominium project, closed its 125th hotel/condominium unit late last month. That pace is surely slower than what Trump Tower’s sales would have been in a stronger residential market. But it’s not bad: Trump Tower sales agents sold the 125 hotel/condominium units in six weeks.

The tower sits in a prime location in downtown Chicago, along the banks of the Chicago River. It includes 486 tower condominiums and 339 hotel condominiums. According to the Chicago P.R. agency promoting Trump International Hotel & Tower, sales agents have sold 75 percent of all the homes in the project.

These are strong numbers. But I’m sure when construction began on the project that Trump and his advisors thought they’d have sold more than 75 percent of the tower’s residences by now. The Trump name still counts for a lot in residential real estate. But the rough economy and horrible real estate market count for a lot, too.

Trump will sell out. It just might take a little longer than anyone thought.

Writing about residential real estate sometimes means looking toward the future. That’s what writer Christoper Leinberger of the Atlantic does in a fascinating story, which you can read here, about what may be the slums of tomorrow.

The interesting thing is, these future slums are all new-construction, suburban hamlets surrounded by grassy fields and filled with large, fairly expensive starter homes.

Leinberger’s story leads off with a look at Windy Ridge, a recently built development of pricey starter homes near Charlotte, N.C. As of late last year, 81 of the 132 homes here had fallen into foreclosure. He reports of vandals who have kicked in the doors to vacant homes and sprayed graffitti on others. Homeless people have moved in.

And, yes, it’s a suburb, not some inner-city, poverty-wracked neighborhood.

What happened? Many blame the subprime mortgage crisis. Many of the owners of homes in places like Windy Ridge could no longer afford their mortgages as their monthly payments rose.

Leinberger, though, points to another trend: Many residents are choosing to move back to cities. This will leave a huge surplus of suburban homes unwanted, the story says. And what will happen to these homes? They very well could become tomorrow’s slums: The places people live because they have nowhere else to go.

It may seem unlikely now, but Leinberger’s story quotes some pretty persuasive housing experts. And think about it: What are the real benefits of living in a far-off suburb? It usually means a long daily commute to work. It also means spending much of your life in a car.

Today, many major cities have cleaned up their acts. Their downtowns are again bustling with new development, both residential and commercial. Their crime rates have fallen. Their public transportation cities are stellar.

I can point to Chicago, my hometown, as an example of this. Mayor Daley — and, yes, the man has many, many faults — has done a great job of reinvigorating Chicago’s core downtown and the neighborhoods spiraling off it. New condo towers seem to be sprouting every day, not to mention an army of restaurants, shops and theaters. Downtown Chicago, and anywhere near it, is the hot spot to live.

If it does indeed happen — and who knows what really will occur — the end of the suburban push farther and farther from cities is undeniably a good thing. Far-flung suburbs encourage residents to suck down gas like it’s going out of style. It encourages people to live more isolated lives. And all those subdivisions gobbling acres upon acres of land are far from environmentally friendly.

So if you’re looking for someone to live, live where the people already are. You don’t need that hour-and-a-half morning commute every day.

When considering a move to a new city, homeowners have to consider a host of factors: Will my family like our new metropolis? Are the schools good? Are there enough parks and recreational facilities? Is the crime rate low?

And, of course, how far will my salary stretch in my new city?

Fortunately, CNNMoney.com has a tool that lets you take your current salary and location and compare it with another. It’s a fascinating tool to explore, and you can check it out here.

The tool is simple: Plug in your current salary and location. Then plug in the city you are considering moving, too. You might be surprised at what comes up. For instance, when I plugged in a salary of $100,000 in Chicago and a new destination city of St. Cloud, Minn., here’s what came up: Someone making $100,000 in Chicago was comparable to someone earning slightly more than $88,622 in St. Cloud. That’s because housing costs, on average, slightly more than 28 percent less in St. Cloud than it does in Chicago. Groceries cost about 9 percent less, utilites more than 5 percent less and transportation more than 9.7 percent less.

Of course, the salaries can go the other way, too. That same person making $100,000 in Chicago would have to make $150,000 in San Francisco — one of the most expensive cities in the country — to enjoy the same standard of living. That’s because everything is more expensive in San Francisco: Housing is about 114 percent higher, groceries about 30 percent, utilities more than 18 percent and healthcare more than 14 percent.

The salary-comparison tool is a fun one to use even if you’re not planning to move anytime soon. And if you’re dead set against ever moving again, the tool may provide you with just one more reason to stay put.

Housing professionals like to say that residential real estate is all about location. I’ve heard from many Realtors that you have to look at individual markets when talking about the country’s housing slump. Just because sales are bad and prices are dropping in much of Florida, it doesn’t mean that things are equally as bad in Chicago.

A recent story by James Hagerty in the Washington Post’s online Real Estate Journal says that’s changing. Even previously strong real estate markets are now suffering from the housing slump. You can read the story here.

According to the story, the housing slump has finally hit the Pacific Northwest and North Carolina, two markets that had largely been immune to the problems in the residential real estate market. The story even mentions that Manhattan may soon seen its own version of the housing slump.

There is some good news in the story, though. The markets in Boston and Denver are still going strong, for instance. And Dallas held steady, too.

But the overall theme of the story is a chilling one for those hoping that an end to the housing slump is near: Housing troubles are still spreading across the country. It looks like 2008 is going to be another tough year for the residential market.

Are there certain neighborhoods that are so high-profile, so desirable that they are immune from the slumping residential real estate market?

According to new research from Forbes Magazine, it would appear that, yes, some neighborhoods are slump-resistant.

Last week, the magazine published a report on what it calls the country’s 15 “blue chip” neighborhoods.  Housing values in these most desirable of neighborhoods not only held held steady during the housing downturn, they actually increased.

Where should you move, then, if you want to live in a neighborhood that’s immune from the whims of the housing industry? Well, if you can plunk down an average of $2.45 million for your home, try New York City’s Fifth Avenue and 70th Street neighborhood, where home values have risen 325 percent since 1990.

If that’s out of your range, try another neighborhood that ranked high in Forbes’ report: Homes near Chicago’s Lake Shore Drive and Route 41 area cost an average of $1.91 million and have jumped 236 percent since 1990. If that New York price seems a little low to you, try buying a residence in Los Angeles’ Pacific Palisades neighborhood. Homes here cost an average of $3.1 million and have risen 440 percent since 1990.

I know that homes in these neighborhoods are a little out of most folks’ price ranges. But doesn’t it provide comfort to know that some homeowners aren’t struggling with declining housing values?

No. Well, maybe 2008 will be better than 2007. If you can’t hope the day after Christmas, when can you?

The sluggish housing market has claimed another high-profile victim. This time, it’s Neumann Homes in suburban Chicago, a residential developer that builds homes in Illinois, Wisconsin and Colorado.

The builder late in the day on Oct. 22 faxed press releases to several Chicago newspapers announcing that it had defaulted on its credit facilities and was preparing to file Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The company has already laid off most of its employees and has closed all of its sales and production offices.

According to Crain’s Chicago Business, Neumann has 15 residential subdivisions in various stages of construction in Illinois. The company said it is seeking funding from its lenders to help complete homes already under construction. The press release also said that Neumann will ask the bankruptcy court to allow it to refund earnest money deposits to consumers whose homes are not yet under construction.

In the release, Neumann president Ken Neumann pointed to the “significant downturn” in the housing markets in Chicago, Detroit and Colorado for his company’s demise.

This is no small-fry homebuilder. Neumann Homes has been around since 1980 and, according to its Web site, has been building from 90 to 100 homes every year since the middle of that decade. The company sold more than 1,800 homes in 2005. The Chicago Sun-Times recently ranked Neumann Homes as the ninth-largest Chicago-area homebuilder in 2006 by volume. It had sold $231.2 million worth of homes that year according to the Chicago newspaper.

Neumann’s bankruptcy filing is just more evidence of a residential real estate market that isn’t turning around any time soon. Defenders of residential real estate’s strength routinely pointed to the Midwest as an area of stability when it came to the housing market. It was always the East and West coasts that they claimed had the most severe market swings.

Neumann, though, served the Midwest. It had nothing to do with the coasts. This real estate slump isn’t confined to the coasts. It’s impacting everyone.