Thanks, Millennials: L.A.'s Population Tops 4 Million for the First Time (Pasadena: homes, neighborhoods)

[PDR2015]

Originally Posted by highlanderfil

Right - that's kind of what I was getting at with some of my examples. L.A. is really in a unique position because it doesn't have a "center" as such, Downtown notwithstanding (because it only really became viable in the last decade), whereas there are a bunch of "urban-style" small settings which still satisfy our cohort's desire for a walkable city-like environment. Very similar to Metro Detroit, in fact, adjusting for local specificities. To wit, very few of those little "downtowns" have single-family dwellings right in the middle (on the outskirts, no matter how close they may be - sure), but there are plenty of lofts/apartments/condos right in them.

Between all the back and forth, I've lost track of what the original argument was. I still think it is generally false to say that single family homes are not as available in LA because of the decentralization of the commercial/business clusters (except for downtown), as was stated above. The main issue here in LA is not that younger people pass on single family homes vs condo/townhouses but rather affordability.

In other cities, single family homes on the outskirts tend to be more affordable (same with LA but the outskirts with affordable houses are a much longer drive away and the commute is amplified by traffic issues); people in other cities cities choose between houses with yards (albeit small ones) within a short drive to the urban center versus more "urban" multi-family dwellings near the core. In LA, the decision to live in a multi-family unit is more driven by affordability than preference (the exception being luxury downtown units and those near the water). I don't have the statistics to back this up but just using common sense.

[jm1982]

Yes PDR2015 , I agree with you .

Santa Monica , Burbank , melrose , Glendale , Hollywood , culver city , all of these and more have SFH in walkable areas.

Not sure what the other poster means by "right in them "
Are there really that many people living RIGHT on the promenade or on Main Street Santa Monica ?

also considering the city is decentralized ( does not have a downtown that is THE place to hangout ) .. There seems to be less of an appeal to live RIGHT in the middle of a certain neighborhood .

[highlanderfil]

Originally Posted by PDR2015

Between all the back and forth, I've lost track of what the original argument was. I still think it is generally false to say that single family homes are not as available in LA because of the decentralization of the commercial/business clusters (except for downtown), as was stated above. The main issue here in LA is not that younger people pass on single family homes vs condo/townhouses but rather affordability.

If you use the stats jm1982 provided, it does paint a rather clear picture (just not the one (s)he was hoping for). They are available - but not nearly at the same rate as in the other major cities. Hell, it would be impossible for it to be any other way - this country was built on single family dwellings, not apartment complexes. But to compare NYC and L.A. as a whole (given the population numbers cited, that definitely wasn't just Downtown) is just silly - they couldn't be more different.

In LA, the decision to live in a multi-family unit is more driven by affordability than preference (the exception being luxury downtown units and those near the water). I don't have the statistics to back this up but just using common sense.

It all depends on how you define preference. It's not unfathomable to choose a $2K/month mortgage/HOA payment over a $1.5K rental and forego that $500 of disposable income if you want to put down roots and are interested in building equity rather than just paying rent. This argument gets murkier if all you can afford is a room in an apartment with three others at $500/month each, of course.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by highlanderfil

Right - that's kind of what I was getting at with some of my examples. L.A. is really in a unique position because it doesn't have a "center" as such, Downtown notwithstanding (because it only really became viable in the last decade), whereas there are a bunch of "urban-style" small settings which still satisfy our cohort's desire for a walkable city-like environment. Very similar to Metro Detroit, in fact, adjusting for local specificities. To wit, very few of those little "downtowns" have single-family dwellings right in the middle (on the outskirts, no matter how close they may be - sure), but there are plenty of lofts/apartments/condos right in them.

Too bad it's 100x as expensive as Detroit

[highlanderfil]

Originally Posted by jm1982

Not sure what the other poster means by "right in them "

This is what I mean: Home for Rent - 375 E Green St, Pasadena, CA 91101 - realtor.com®

Versus https://www.google.com/maps/place/48...8e5d17!6m1!1e1

The reason I reference the latter house is because I used to live there. Yes, eminently walkable to Old Town, but it took 20 minutes vs. living "right there", where you are literally three (please, please don't ask "why not two or four?") flights of stairs away from five restaurants, three coffee shops and a movie theater. It's a completely different vibe and that's what your stereotypical millennial means when talking about wanting to live in an urban setting.

Again (I really don't understand why this is so difficult) - I never said you couldn't have SFHs within walking distance of an urban area. You can - but you very rarely have them in the same setting as my first link.

[highlanderfil]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

Too bad it's 100x as expensive as Detroit

Oh, look, our local real estate expert has shown up in yet another thread pertaining to a city in which he doesn't live. Which part of "local specificities" escaped you, Cap? Or did you come here to lord your $8K/month rent over us, peasants? Because I would love for you to find me an $80/month apartment in Metro Detroit (if I may be permitted to be literal for a second).

[seain dublin]

Originally Posted by Inter441

Thanks to us millennial educated and creative .. We don't like to drive and live a city lifestyle .


Hope we can take over the government and politics . It's time for old folks to get out of politics .


We can bring progressive change to California !!

Thanks for the laugh. Looking up something on your smart phone and being the first one to come up with the answer doesn't make you educated.

Being able to carry on a conversation and look people in the eye, and knowing a subject(because you studied it does). Something many of your generation cannot do.

CA has always been progressive, you didn't invent that. I didn't invent that, it was people who have gone before.

Looking at young people from the 60s and 70s who marched for causes(without taking selfies) and were before my time are now those old people you mention. Now compare to our very self absorbed, all about me, special little snowflake mentatility, that is so prevalent today.


How do you make change when your stare down at your phone everywhere you go, and aren't even aware of your surroundings?

What exacty have you done for your community, city, state, or country...I mean besides wear skinny jeans and post your every move on Facebook? What you said were empty statements.

[MordinSolus]

Originally Posted by simbared

There are some very broad generalizations about millennials in this thread and the linked articles. There are, what, 75 million of them?

Almost every article about what the Millennials are going to do in the future is entirely bogus, purely fictional. Data has to be manipulated to suit a predetermined agenda, baseless projections have to be made, and sweeping generalizations have to be accepted as fact. The baby boomers and Gen-Xers are obsessed with telling the Millennials who they are, what they want and what they will do. Theyre also obsessed with telling Millennials that they're the "worst generation ever," which is something old people have been saying about young people since at least the time of Socrates. It's extreme narcissism and the inevitable fear of young people causing these fuddy-duddies to act like buffoons.

[highlanderfil]

Originally Posted by seain dublin

What exacty have you done for your community, city, state, or country...I mean besides wear skinny jeans and post your every move on Facebook? What you said were empty statements.

This and lots of it.

[REITS4life]

Originally Posted by highlanderfil

This is what I mean: Home for Rent - 375 E Green St, Pasadena, CA 91101 - realtor.com®

Versus https://www.google.com/maps/place/48...8e5d17!6m1!1e1

The reason I reference the latter house is because I used to live there. Yes, eminently walkable to Old Town, but it took 20 minutes vs. living "right there", where you are literally three (please, please don't ask "why not two or four?") flights of stairs away from five restaurants, three coffee shops and a movie theater. It's a completely different vibe and that's what your stereotypical millennial means when talking about wanting to live in an urban setting.

Again (I really don't understand why this is so difficult) - I never said you couldn't have SFHs within walking distance of an urban area. You can - but you very rarely have them in the same setting as my first link.

Where did you go to HS?