Which areas of LA are the next likely to be gentrified? (Los Angeles: low income, apartment)

[majoun]

Originally Posted by jm1982

I view the rail lines as a benefit..but does the average home buyer really view them that way.

Is that why prices in Highland Park are so high? Or is it because of some perceived 'hipness'.

Just like with music and other things most people seem to pay high prices for something just because they heard it's cool.

Tons of major publications are pumping Highland Park as one of the hippest areas.

Many people have the herd/sheep mentality.

Once they start pumping Boyle Heights prices will skyrocket.

Proximity to public transportation drives up RE prices in every city in the world, why would L.A. be any different?

Especially with the cost of fuel and upkeep for a car.

[jm1982]

There are no rail lines in Santa Monica, but it's some of the most expensive property.

Also there is rail through Watts , but I don't believe prices have been driven up because of that...

We are still very much a car culture in SoCal. I agree in the future people will want to live close to the rail lines even richer people...but right now I don't get that sense.

How many home buyers are really taking the rail on a regular basis?

[genjy]

Originally Posted by jm1982

I view the rail lines as a benefit..but does the average home buyer really view them that way.

Of course they do. On the MLS, many properties advertise they are close to rail stations or future stations.

[jm1982]

I don't see any proof that it raises home prices. Home prices have gone up across the board this year whether by metro or not. I don't see any evidence that people are paying more to be near the metro lines. I just don't..

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by jm1982

I don't see any proof that it raises home prices. Home prices have gone up across the board this year whether by metro or not. I don't see any evidence that people are paying more to be near the metro lines. I just don't..

It's not the end-all, be-all for price differences but I think that rail is definitely a bonus and people in LA are more and more looking to live near rail.

You also have to look at the types of people that typically gentrify a neighborhood. Your typical middle-aged North of Montana-er is not going to move to Highland Park or Mid-City, no matter what. However a young person that is looking for a first-time home often will prioritize rail, and places that don't have it will seem less desirable. I think more important than rail is quality housing stock, which Mid-City and Highland Park have in spades.

And yes I do think part of the appeal of Highland Park is the herd mentality / hype. Still seems like a cool neighborhood to me though.

The Blue Line is an exception, as it runs through neighborhoods that are thoroughly entrenched as first-generation immigrant neighborhoods (and previously gang-infested territories). Sometimes that stigma is hard to shake, and it does seem like in LA the neighborhoods that are thought of as African-American gentrify slower than Hispanic or Asian ones.

[andrecle]

While rail is an added bonus, you have to also remember that most people don't work in areas that are close to rail stations (DTLA, Hollywood, Pasadena, etc.) or would have incredibly long public transportation commutes, therefore rail has limited benefit. I think it definitely helps for renters, who tend to utilize rail more, but many people looking to buy owner-occupied housing aren't as concerned about rail access.

[genjy]

Originally Posted by andrecle

but many people looking to buy owner-occupied housing aren't as concerned about rail access.

It's an awesome bonus for homeowners because rail offers an alternative to driving (way better than no alternative), plus a rail station can trigger development in its surrounding area, which can add convenience/desirability and can lead to higher property values.

Going back to HLP, that's kind of what happened. Rail station, new restaurants and shops, house flipping, higher property values.

[PDF]

Originally Posted by genjy

It's an awesome bonus for homeowners because rail offers an alternative to driving (way better than no alternative), plus a rail station can trigger development in its surrounding area, which can add convenience/desirability and can lead to higher property values.

Going back to HLP, that's kind of what happened. Rail station, new restaurants and shops, house flipping, higher property values.

This. I don't think people are specifically moving into these places because there is rail access, but it has to be an added bonus.

[SportyandMisty]

Next to be Gentrified? San Bernardino.

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by andrecle

While rail is an added bonus, you have to also remember that most people don't work in areas that are close to rail stations (DTLA, Hollywood, Pasadena, etc.) or would have incredibly long public transportation commutes, therefore rail has limited benefit. I think it definitely helps for renters, who tend to utilize rail more, but many people looking to buy owner-occupied housing aren't as concerned about rail access.

Good points. With the exception of the government and office jobs in downtown, most of LA county's job centers are not convenient to rail. You can get to them by bus, but that often takes awhile. Especially if you're working off peak hours.