U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 03-16-2011, 08:44 PM
 
Location: San Gabriel Valley, CA
12,540 posts, read 12,828,725 times
Reputation: 8390

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
If someone with a median income can afford roughly a median home in his/her community then I'd suggest homes are "affordable".
Right, exactly...and as I and a couple of people before me are/were saying...the L.A. area really not comfortably fit this description in decades. There is now way this fact is the nation's best-kept secret or something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
The fact that someone from the middle-of-one-where can't afford one isn't relevant.
No, it's entirely relevant. I was pointing out that L.A. has always been more expensive to live in...cost of real estate, COL v. salary than a huge portion of the nation (not just people out in the middle of nowhere) and that everyone knows it. Or not "always"...but for decades and decades. Again, why this should be no surprise to anyone, *nor is it really a new phenomenon* in L.A...at all. At least not since the Golden Age of Movies.

If you're talking about the SFV, sure, maybe, but that sure is a hike from L.A. proper...no? I mean as an analogy: it's always been cheaper out here (where I live -- inland near the edge of the SGV) to live as compared to salaries v. living in the city proper but then again I'm well over an hour from L.A. in the best traffic...just like a lot of the SFV. So SFV's formerly inexpensive (comparatively) status doesn't really fit into this thread. I get your point but I can post about any number of areas that used to be quite reasonable but now are not...L.A. has not fit that description in any of our memories, probably. (How far back in history do we have to go to find "quite reasonable", "homes," "safe" and "City of Los Angeles" all in the same sentence?)

The COL including real estate as compared to salaries rises and falls, of course (the ratio). It changes. But when on earth has the COL been great in L.A. (after the early 1920s)?

The thread is about L.A. and real estate here.

Yes, homes have been cheaper in L.A. in the past than now. The economy has had its better times in the past than now. This is true of pretty much anywhere...no?

The big "surprise" seems to be in how high cost of living tends to be here v. salaries...and that is what's not anywhere brand-new...or shouldn't be...to pretty much anybody.

Home prices will probably go down all over L.A. eventually, at least somewhat. In some areas, fairly significantly. But when will COL here be reasonable compared to salaries? I guess after a meteor strikes Encino, or else when Hollywood moves to Delaware. Barring that...probably never going to be a very "easy" place to live price-wise.

Last edited by JerZ; 03-16-2011 at 08:54 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-16-2011, 08:59 PM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,350 posts, read 10,661,380 times
Reputation: 4075
Quote:
Originally Posted by miyu View Post
Let's take 90066 Mar Vista for example. Median income 54k in 2007 (unsure if this is at the peak or after the bust?). Average home sale price in last 6 months: $744.5K. So the fundamental price should be 162k?
You are comparing apples to oranges, you need to compare median incomes and median home sales. Mar Vista has some very expensive homes, these will shift the average up significantly.

Anyhow, Income to house price relationships break down in areas with extreme wealth, the wealthy aren't tied to their income like everyone else. But there are only a handful of these areas in LA, the vast majority of folks in LA aren't wealthy and are tied to their incomes.

As I suggested before, you shouldn't expect to be able to afford the exclusive neighborhoods of LA on a middle-class income. These neighborhoods also didn't see rapid appreciation during the housing bubble.

Quote:
Originally Posted by miyu View Post
You can also rent for $1800/month in a nice neighborhood where the next block over has a million dollar+ homes. So those million dollar homes have to come down to 325k or so to make it sensible to buy.
Are the homes identical? If not, so what?

Anyhow, if prices dropped another 20~30% prices would be anchored to local incomes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2011, 09:04 PM
 
5,375 posts, read 7,149,693 times
Reputation: 2768
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ View Post
If you're talking about the SFV, sure, maybe, but that sure is a hike from L.A. proper...no?
The San Fernando Vally is part of L.A. proper. We wanted to leave you (election to separate SFV as an independent city within L.A. County) but you (City of Los Angeles) loved us so much you wouldn't let us go.

It was cheaper out here way back when, back when the Owen's Valley aqueduct was being built. Now... ?

Actually the history of the aqueduct and SFV becoming part of LA are intimately linked.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2011, 09:05 PM
 
Location: San Gabriel Valley, CA
12,540 posts, read 12,828,725 times
Reputation: 8390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovehound View Post
The San Fernando Vally is part of L.A. proper. We wanted to leave you (election to separate SFV as an independent city within L.A. County) but you (City of Los Angeles) loved us so much you wouldn't let us go.
Well, can you blame us? You are all so cute over there.

I guess what I really should have said was, say, downtown. "Proper" meaning what someone might actually think of as "the city of" L.A. (hard to define as it's so sprawling). The SFV isn't usually included in this, it's more stand-alone in people's minds. It's its own area. Hope this makes sense. I don't know if it does!

I am "properly" in L.A. in a literal sense, but I would sure never describe myself as "being in L.A." Even when I tell friends where I am, if I say L.A. I'll be sure to say "L.A. *County*."

This may only be something an outsider could understand...

Hmm, nope. Probably doesn't make sense. But I'm sure you get what I mean.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2011, 09:09 PM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,350 posts, read 10,661,380 times
Reputation: 4075
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ View Post
Right, exactly...and as I and a couple of people before me are/were saying...the L.A. area really not comfortably fit this description in decades.
Median incomes have roughly matched median home prices up until the housing bubble. Prices were a bit distorted in the earlier 90's, but nothing like today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ View Post
Again, why this should be no surprise to anyone, *nor is it really a new phenomenon* in L.A...at all. At least not since the Golden Age of Movies.
Having grown up in LA I find it very surprising because its simply not true. Before the 70's homes in LA were cheap even in national standards, after the 70's the prices increased but so did wages. It is only recently that homes have become affordable to local residents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ View Post
If you're talking about the SFV, sure, maybe, but that sure is a hike from L.A. proper...no?
Huh? The San Fernando Valley is LA proper, approximately half of LA city is in the San Fernando Valley.

Anyhow, let me know when you become familiar with the city-limits of Los Angeles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2011, 09:18 PM
 
Location: state of procrastination
3,458 posts, read 3,704,807 times
Reputation: 2722
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
You are comparing apples to oranges, you need to compare median incomes and median home sales. Mar Vista has some very expensive homes, these will shift the average up significantly.

Anyhow, Income to house price relationships break down in areas with extreme wealth, the wealthy aren't tied to their income like everyone else. But there are only a handful of these areas in LA, the vast majority of folks in LA aren't wealthy and are tied to their incomes.

As I suggested before, you shouldn't expect to be able to afford the exclusive neighborhoods of LA on a middle-class income. These neighborhoods also didn't see rapid appreciation during the housing bubble.
The median home sale price is $740K (out of 266 homes sold over the last 6 months). I doubt this makes any difference versus 744.5K. Median income is still 54k. Care to compare apples and apples?

Your second paragraph basically reiterates what I have been saying in previous posts. Prices aren't coming down here and it's annoying.

Mar Vista is kind of an above average neighborhood (in no way exclusive) with a somewhat crappy school district. Again, I don't even expect to afford a home in this area. And these neighborhoods DID see an equivalent appreciation during the bubble.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2011, 09:20 PM
 
Location: San Gabriel Valley, CA
12,540 posts, read 12,828,725 times
Reputation: 8390
[quote=user_id;18311642] Huh? The San Fernando Valley is LA proper, approximately half of LA city is in the San Fernando Valley. [quote]

I know. I've just been told! I'm wondering...is "city proper" a colloquialism or something? Nobody seems to be understanding me on this so perhaps it's an expression from the northeast? I never thought of it that way..."city proper" usually means the actual, urban, down-town-ey area and the immediately surrounding areas. (I'm starting to think that my "immediately" is different from the west coast version, too. I'm thinking people here think of a 2-hour drive as pretty close by! I should have taken that into account when I posted but I really didn't think...it's a saying and a description.) As an example, the Bronx is obviously in New York City but nobody from the Bronx would call the Bronx "New York City." If they were talking about, say, midtown they'd say "New York City" or "the city". That's *the city proper*.

I was not considering much of the SFG as an immediately surrounding area any more than I would consider my own city, Glendora, to be an immediately surrounding area (even though technically I'm "in L.A.," too).

Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
Anyhow, let me know when you become familiar with the city-limits of Los Angeles.
Are you familiar with them too? According to a post above, they include the O.C., for heaven's sake. And San Berdoo. I was trying to make things easier but again...from an outsider's POV..."city limits" and other expressions may be different. It certainly seems that way.

Bottom line: Sure, the ratio will probably even up nicely in *some of* "L.A." And I'm sure in the past the ratio has been better in *some of* "L.A." Is what you're saying here, then, that L.A. is NOT known for being an expensive area to live in? And that 25 more years ago, it was NOT known for being expensive? Because if you are -- then correct me. I don't have personal experience that far back in history with the area. But I do know that nobody I know or have ever known, going back a history of 44 years of living now, nor anyone I know who grew up here in the 60s or later, has ever thought of "the L.A. area" as easy to move into or easy to live in as far as expenses v. salary. Ever. Not even from all the way across the country. It's worse right now (as with nearly everywhere) but I'm sorry...I do not buy that this is all such a shock and that housing prices just "have to" come way way down. Until L.A. falls into the sea, it will be prime property and prime real estate with nice weather and prices will remain high compared to incomes.

Last edited by JerZ; 03-16-2011 at 09:33 PM.. Reason: Took some stuff out -- have a feeling it's my expressions & the area I'm envisioning that are the miscommunication here
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2011, 09:24 PM
 
5,375 posts, read 7,149,693 times
Reputation: 2768
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ View Post
Well, can you blame us? You are all so cute over there.
Aw! We love you too! We just preferred to be "friends with benefits."

I've never felt for a moment that I didn't live in the City of Los Angeles, although of course I always knew the difference between here and downtown.

Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
The San Fernando Valley is LA proper, approximately half of LA city is in the San Fernando Valley.
That's one thing that astonished me when I was reading updates of the recent census. It's not that anything changed much recently, I just never realized that, never realized that such a big part of L.A.'s population was in SFV. I don't understand that since the rest of the city seems so much larger geographically.

Recently the traffic here proves it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2011, 09:35 PM
 
Location: San Gabriel Valley, CA
12,540 posts, read 12,828,725 times
Reputation: 8390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovehound View Post

I've never felt for a moment that I didn't live in the City of Los Angeles, although of course I always knew the difference between here and downtown.
Okay, so, this must be it, then: our viewpoints of "City of L.A." are totally different. I'll have to defer to yours since you have been here a lot longer than I have, but again, I am no farther from downtown than much of the SFV is, yet I would not consider myself as living in the City of Los Angeles. I'm in L.A. County, sure, but I don't consider this area to be part of the "City of L.A." -- I consider this the burbs that just happen to be in the same county!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2011, 09:37 PM
 
Location: San Gabriel Valley, CA
12,540 posts, read 12,828,725 times
Reputation: 8390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovehound View Post
That's one thing that astonished me when I was reading updates of the recent census. It's not that anything changed much recently, I just never realized that, never realized that such a big part of L.A.'s population was in SFV.
Ha, see? See? Even Lovehound didn't know the details of this fact and Lovehound isn't a way-outsider like me. (pointing desperately at Lovehound)

So...any snotty comments about city lines need not apply!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top