Westlake Hills now as expensive as Bay Area (Austin, Galveston: selling a home, neighborhood)

[hound 109]

Originally Posted by cBach

A bit pedantic? Let's use San Jose as a comparison.

Not at all "Pedantic". You were comparing a tiny part of Greater Austin to a Huge Swath of California Coastal Area (located near one of the more desirable and expensive cities in America).

My comment regarding "bay area" was a joke. (But also a suggestion to newbies from the left coast that for many of us, Galveston Bay is much more a part of our everyday reality - the food we eat, the family members we visit, the Business people we work with - than Baghdad by the Bay or San Jose is.)

Finally....much of the draw of WL Hills (a LOT of it).... is for the top tier public schools (along with it being close to downtown). Again, I'm not sure what WL having superior schools has to do with the "Bay Area". Since one can buy a home in the "Bay Area" and find themselves tracking to a good school or a cr*p school.

But in WL Hills, all the schools are top tier (better than good). I would bet that people who buy in Eanes ISD are paying a 20-25% premium just for the school track. Again....I think a better apples to apples comparison would be with HP ISD. (A small one HS ISD, less than 5 miles from a downtown area & both HSs are top 5 open enrollment HSs in the state - by any measure.)

[austinnerd]

Certainly does seem odd to compare an area of over 8000 sq miles to one that's only 4 sq miles! How about comparing to Atherton, median home price is over $4mil and is about 5 sq miles in size. Heck, even low rent Palo Alto is over $2.5mil.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by cBach

A bit pedantic? Let's use San Jose as a comparison.

You are being ridiculous. Westlake is the #1 expensive area in austin. The #1 area (aside from SF itself) is atherton where the median home price is 5.6 million. Next is palo alto with a median home price of 2.9 million

Westlake hills has a population of 3300 and atherton has a population of about 8000.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by Novacek

average size in Westlake =/= average size currently being _sold_ in Westlake.


And what's your source on that number?


In September 2016, the range was 2700-11000 (ie nothing as small as 2500, much less averaging 2500)

https://austin.curbed.com/2016/9/7/1...lls-home-costs


Looking today, SFH seems to average at least 4000
West Lake Hills, TX Single Family Homes for Sale - realtor.com®

My source was the same article. I agree with you in that there are a lot of people that have held onto smaller homes that haven't ever hit the market (or for a long time). Most movement is in higher end because the ones with lower end homes know they can just keep holding on to cash out... I have a friend that actually has a circa 1980's 2200 sq ft home in Westlake Hills and he is laughing ever year he sees the property valuations. He figures he can find a nice ranch out in Hill Country to retire from the profits he'll make on the home.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by Austin97

You are being ridiculous. Westlake is the #1 expensive area in austin. The #1 area (aside from SF itself) is atherton where the median home price is 5.6 million. Next is palo alto with a median home price of 2.9 million

Westlake hills has a population of 3300 and atherton has a population of about 8000.

My comment was about referring to the "Galveston Bay Area" instead of "the SF Bay Area". We all knew what I was referring to, wasn't sure of the purpose of that comment.

[cBach]

My point was that Austin now has parts of it that rivals some parts of the Bay Area in price. This was never the case before. In the "old days" even Westlake Hills was affordable for Californians moving here.

I wasn't making a wholesale comparison I was just trying to make a point that Austin has gotten more expensive and people have to be more careful in selecting a spot to get a relative value.

[ScoPro]

Westlake has a better football team than anything in the Bay area.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by cBach

My source was the same article.

What same article? This one?

https://communityimpact.com/austin/l...-hits-1m-mark/

The only mention of 2500 there was a "back in the day".

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by cBach

My point was that Austin now has parts of it that rivals some parts of the Bay Area in price.

The most expensive parts of Austin now rival the cheapest parts of the bay area.

Originally Posted by cBach

This was never the case before.

Again, what's your source? 10 years ago California was also a lot cheaper than it is now.

Originally Posted by cBach

In the "old days" even Westlake Hills was affordable for Californians moving here.

And it still is, if they're cashing out even an average house from there.

Originally Posted by cBach

I wasn't making a wholesale comparison I was just trying to make a point that Austin has gotten more expensive

As has everywhere else (that isn't dying). Its a moving target.

[hound 109]

Originally Posted by cBach

My comment was about referring to the "Galveston Bay Area" instead of "the SF Bay Area". We all knew what I was referring to, wasn't sure of the purpose of that comment.

Then why didn't you SAY that the Galveston Bay comment was what you found pedantic. You inferred that my entire post was pedantic. Type what you mean.

The "purpose of the comment" was meant for the many left coasters who might be moving here, that there are other "bay areas" on our mind than just SF Bay.

Orange Co. could mean a place where Disneyland is located.....or a place where DisneyWorld is located.....or a place to go crabbing near Bridge City. Folks should stop gazing at their own navel and type what they mean.

Oh....& the original post title: Westlake Hills now as expensive as Bay Area was silly and is juvenile click bait, because:

- The SF Bay area is significantly more expensive than Westlake Hills.
- The public schools in WL Hills are significantly better than 99% of the "the Bay Area".
- WL Hills is located much closer to a Downtown area than any 800K-1.2 million dollar enclave found in "the Bay Area".

WL Hills and the "Bay Area" have very few things in common. Not really sure what the purpose of the Post (or this thread) is.