Do most young people here prefer a house or an apartment? (Irvine: apartment complex, roofing)

[majoun]

Originally Posted by Sassberto

Generally speaking apartment / townhome living is considered second class in most of CA because our primary housing stock is single-family. When most apartment buildings were built in CA they were for single working people. Nowadays you have families living in apartments. However recently that has changed as upscale townhome / condo living has emerged in CA. But for the majority of people, a house is the gold standard.

Personally I would never live in an apartment or attached home again if I could avoid it.

From my own personal experience as a kid, I was much happier when my family lived in an apartment than when they moved to a house. There were more families in the apartment building than in the area where the house was - and we're talking about the 1970s, not today.

In fact, back when I went to Uni High in West L.A., the overwhelming majority of my friends who went there lived in apartments. Most of my teenage friends who went to Beverly High also lived in apartments.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by Sassberto

Sort of a dubious inference. It depends highly on the apartment you are talking about. In many areas of CA, apartments are only for the poor.

So let's see,most of South Central LA's population lives in single family residences, while most of the population in Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and West Hollywood lives in apartments - seems like in SoCal, apartments tend to be more for the well to do than SFRs.

In the Bay Area there doesn't seem to be any class/economic difference between those who live in houses and those who live in apartments.

City-Data posters do tend to have a definite bias against apartments and condos, however

[majoun]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

When you say apartment versus house are you talking in terms of pure living (and not ownership status)? Depending on where you live in CA there are a lot of people who rent houses. I've rented an apartment, a duplex, and a single family home in California, and have loved each of them for different reasons. I liked the house a lot because we had a (admittedly tiny) yard of our own, and had a chance to grow our own vegetables. I also liked the fact that our house was a sort of modified bungalow court, with four cottages on the property. We all had our own space, but I felt more connected to our neighbors than I would have if I was on our own private lot. That's purely psychological, I suppose, but it made me feel safer.

Probably for me the ideal situation, if I had the money, would be an apartment with a nice private balcony or deck (big enough for some pots and some chairs) overlooking the neighborhood. That would be the best of both worlds. The bungalow court house was great, too, so maybe it's a tie.

Bungalow courts are great, and a form of housing native to and unique to Los Angeles. For some reason, they ceased to be built in the 1950s when the entire population of L.A. went SFR-crazy, which is why they aren't found in the newer sections of L.A. ISTM that the whole "apartment stigma" really began about that time - when one looks at many of the pre-WW2 apartment buildings of L.A. some were built very elaborately, and that was at a time when L.A. was an extremely low density city. Some time in the mid 20th century an anti-apartment sentiment crept into L.A. which didn't exist in SF or the eastern cities.

[NYSD1995]

Originally Posted by majoun

So let's see,most of South Central LA's population lives in single family residences, while most of the population in Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and West Hollywood lives in apartments - seems like in SoCal, apartments tend to be more for the well to do than SFRs.

In the Bay Area there doesn't seem to be any class/economic difference between those who live in houses and those who live in apartments.

City-Data posters do tend to have a definite bias against apartments and condos, however

I think the distinction here, is that it is relative to the actual neighborhood, i.e. in places like South Central the people in the houses are still wealthier than the people in the apartments. I would guess that dynamic is similar in Santa Monica too.

[EscapeCalifornia]

Apartments suck. I'm tired of:

Neighbors going up and down stairs as if they have cast iron shoes on at all hours
Neighbors that think its A-OK to have building-shaking, screaming sex at 2:00am
Neighbors that smoke like a chimney making my apartment smell like an ashtray
Neighbors that can't close a door without slamming it so hard the building shakes at all hours
Neighbors that blast music at all hours

A condo is just a glorified apartment that's even harder to get out of than an apartment.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by majoun

So let's see,most of South Central LA's population lives in single family residences, while most of the population in Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and West Hollywood lives in apartments - seems like in SoCal, apartments tend to be more for the well to do than SFRs.

In the Bay Area there doesn't seem to be any class/economic difference between those who live in houses and those who live in apartments.

City-Data posters do tend to have a definite bias against apartments and condos, however

Sassberto has a point, those in the houses are still wealthier than those in the apartments within that neighborhood.

I don't find the Bay Area any different in that respect at all. The people that live in a house in SF are wealthier than those that live in an apartment right next to them.

And it depends on the LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION of the apartment complex. I lived in a condo with my mom when I was younger in a complex that had every amenity imaginable and that looked like a resort and had private security patrolling around. But go to another part of my hometown, Walnut Creek, in this area with a ton of cheaply built apartments called Creekside and its a different story. It's dumpy and cheap and the people and crime reflects that. Like SFH's, location determines how wealthy/nice the place is.

[iluvcj]

Originally Posted by Mach50

The conflict in Classism here is that those who live in apartments more than likely have more cash on hand, than those in the houses.

I believe that is called "house poor", which is most prevalent here in California.

I dont know about that I know some apartment complexes that cost $1800+ for a two bedroom apt, some charge more if you life in SF. So you can be "housepoor or apartment poor"

[Trimac20]

Here apartments are increasingly for rich people - in the 60s to 80s, they were state housing and looked down upon. It seems in most areas a lot of young people are embracing apartment living. Even if I were to move to California, I would seek out an apartment with a nice seaside view in Long Beach. Although a big mansion in the hills would be nice if I had the money!

[City Boy]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

Apartments suck. I'm tired of:

Neighbors going up and down stairs as if they have cast iron shoes on at all hours
Neighbors that think its A-OK to have building-shaking, screaming sex at 2:00am
Neighbors that smoke like a chimney making my apartment smell like an ashtray
Neighbors that can't close a door without slamming it so hard the building shakes at all hours
Neighbors that blast music at all hours

A condo is just a glorified apartment that's even harder to get out of than an apartment.

You live in section 8 housing or something? The Condo/Apartment converted building I live in is Non Smoking, has 2 feet of concrete sound proofing between floors so it's as quiet as any house, Smoking is not allowed in the building, there is a noise curfew that is strictly enforced.

In the city most people rent, San Francisco and NYC are 70-80% renters mostly apartments and they are the two most expensive cities in the country. Maybe in the suburbs apartments are looked down on but not in the city. It's about Location.

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by City Boy

You live in section 8 housing or something? The Condo/Apartment converted building I live in is Non Smoking, has 2 feet of concrete sound proofing between floors so it's as quiet as any house, Smoking is not allowed in the building, there is a noise curfew that is strictly enforced.

In the city most people rent, San Francisco and NYC are 70-80% renters mostly apartments and they are the two most expensive cities in the country. Maybe in the suburbs apartments are looked down on but not in the city. It's about Location.

No I don't live in section 8 housing.

It's a wood framed two story apartment complex that's almost 30 years old like just about everything else around here.