Ok, this is definetly all about perspective.
Culver City is nice I agree with that. I lived there. To say Carson is nice is a little bit of a stretch. I had a girlfriend that lived there. I wasn't impressed. Not to mention Carson at the height of this whole SoCal real estate messs was priced above $500k median. Its good that SoCal people are starting to see housing prices come down in areas like this. $500k for a house in Carson was ridiculous. I wouldn't agree with you about southgate or Bell. Are Lakewood and Cerritos really in LA? SFV valley maybe a official part of LA but its really not LA geographically or culturally. Woodland Hills, Sherman Oaks are not "LA". Burbank maybe. I would be hard presed to say SGV is in "Los Angeles".
The million dollar home statement is at the heart of my point about LA. A million dollar home in LA is really a middle class home in most other American Cities outside of the largets markets (New York, SF) so its really not that impressive. I can show you homes here in Sacramento around the $200-400 mark that look like $1million homes in LA.
Have you actually been to the area west of the 110 before you hit the 405 lately? Other than a few pockets of homes over $600k in Culver City and Baldwin Hill/Ladera Heights the rest sucks. Can you really say that Gardena, Inglewood, Crenshaw, Watts are nice places to live? My grandfather lives in Inglewood off of Century Blvd near Hollywood Park. I visited him weekly and spent time driving through his community. His little 2bdrm 1 bath home built in the 50's was valued at $500k. His neighborhood is not that nice.
We'll really get nowhere with this discussion because in the end its all about perspective. From my perspective Quality housing can be found in Los Angeles if you have the $$$ to pay for it. What I see as middle class housing in Los Angeles requires at minimum a upper middle class salary of at least $200k. I'll use Culver City as an Example. Culver city is a perfect example of what middle class areas in the rest of United States look like. I know, I was in the military and traveled to almost every major city in the US. Most people in Sacramento can afford the Culver City type of housing. Those homes are probalby worth about $250k here in Sac. In LA, they're now probably worth about $550-600k. So from my perspective any areas below the Culver City standard are marginal.
In the end its all perspective and what your used to. Thank you for providing me insight into your persepective it helps me further understand my own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the one
A-Stay-bon, please look at a map and see that the area bounded by those freeways is not that large in comparison to the LA metro area. furthermore thos boundaries inlcude cities like culver city and downey and other very nice place to live. and not in the "i got used to the nastiness so im blind to it" niceness. they are places that have million dollar homes.
i think the better boundaries to dictate what is not the most desirable area to live in are the 10, 710,105(or th 91) and the 110(or western ave). but i must say that within this perimter you still have nice areas. relatively quiet and safe like south gate and bell.
so lookin at a map you see plenty of areas that middle class or even aspiring to be middle class people can live in. from carson, to lakewood to cerritos to whittier to alhambra and beyond into the SGV. and thats not even looking at the SFV.
PS positive outlooks make life better.
|
Welcome to City-Data.com forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with 400,000 other registered members. User profiles and some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your free account you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 13,000 posts/day about local topics and you will see fewer ads. Within the last few months our forum was cited in an article in 15 newspaper and in a story on AOL's homepage.
07-14-2008, 10:04 PM
Woodland Hills
Linear Mode
