Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-16-2014, 12:53 PM
 
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,346 posts, read 80,658,912 times
Reputation: 57356

Advertisements

The home where I spent 4th grade-high school my parents bought in the early 1960s for $30k. It was 3,000 sf on 1/2 acre. They sold it in 1978 for $52,000. Today it's valued at 2.1 million. That's in the Bay Area east of San Francisco, city of Lafayette. It was built in the 1940s, and last time I drove by seemed to be in good shape, but other homes nearby on that size lot have been bulldozed and replaced with townhomes that go for $700k each.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-16-2014, 02:02 PM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,608,492 times
Reputation: 20674
I bought my first house in 1981 with a 16.5% mortgage.

If I were to buy/finance the same property today, at current market value, my monthly payment, exclusive of property taxes, would be less than it was 30+ years ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2014, 02:23 PM
 
19,492 posts, read 12,122,052 times
Reputation: 26266
Quote:
Originally Posted by thatguydownsouth View Post
Watch Elizabeth Warrens video on youtube about the declining middle class. (regardless of her stance as a democrat and yours as a whatever, shes right on this topic). Its the duel earner effect. The moment both spouses started working, families were able to offer more on a house in a good area. This caused houses across the Country to increase in cost..i.e. "value." The increased cost of housing also raised the costs of everything else as well ironically.
Yep it's the feminists fault, the liberal faux native American agrees with conservatives on that. Also she's angling to soak the childless citizens even more to redistribute, much like the conservatives. It's all about the children... No one thought about the children when women (mothers) all started working full time, even though they didn't have to, and left those precious kids in the care of others. Now, we are supposed to feel bad?...and give them our money because they have to work?...

She is wrong about peoples' spending habits and lifestyle expectations being lower than in the seventies. I cannot get people to abide by a budget that will get them out of debt because they will not give up luxuries, and these are lower middle class types. McMansions are being built because it is what people demand. Warren thinks lower income people should be able to buy brand new homes and glosses over the fact that there are cheaper, smaller older homes, the ones people lived in in the seventies. It's called a starter home.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2014, 08:14 PM
 
9,639 posts, read 5,997,710 times
Reputation: 8567
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamajane View Post
What level of maintenance do you mean? If it is not water damaged or something major, you are talking about making some cosmetic changes, which is what people buying these old houses like to do themselves. I see historic homes with Home Depot updates and don't like it. The hardwood floor in my parents 100 yr home is incredible, not maintained but it has been under carpet for many years. Little things need to be replaced but it is pretty authentic to the time period, not a lot changed, and it isn't falling apart.
Cleaning it is maintenance. Not letting things rot. Even not flooding it.

I guess I should say the bigger enemy of these old homes is human neglect/harmful/destructive behavior.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
Aside from keeping the roof water tight... there is very little to degrade.
Yes and no. Properly cared for these old homes last and the worst things they have to fear is human neglect.

Where you are there is probably less degrading going on than from where I am.

I think I've seen one stucco home in my state so far, and wood siding doesn't last 100 years here. You get nice dryness in the summer. I do miss that from when I was in California.

Last edited by LordSquidworth; 04-16-2014 at 08:28 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2014, 12:16 AM
 
28,111 posts, read 63,531,084 times
Reputation: 23240
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordSquidworth View Post
CleYes and no. Properly cared for these old homes last and the worst things they have to fear is human neglect.

Where you are there is probably less degrading going on than from where I am.

I think I've seen one stucco home in my state so far, and wood siding doesn't last 100 years here. You get nice dryness in the summer. I do miss that from when I was in California.
Climate is very important...

My friends up in Seattle are always doing things around the house because of the wet climate and they do have snow.

The SF Bay Area Climate is rather mild and things tend to last longer... I ordered a part the other day for my 1985 Truck and the guy said I must be from California just because the age of the vehicle and I was buying a part for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2014, 12:24 AM
 
8,495 posts, read 4,141,254 times
Reputation: 7043
Default Time Travel

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemlock140 View Post
The home where I spent 4th grade-high school my parents bought in the early 1960s for $30k. It was 3,000 sf on 1/2 acre. They sold it in 1978 for $52,000. Today it's valued at 2.1 million. That's in the Bay Area east of San Francisco, city of Lafayette. It was built in the 1940s, and last time I drove by seemed to be in good shape, but other homes nearby on that size lot have been bulldozed and replaced with townhomes that go for $700k each.
If we could only travel back in time to the 1940's 1950s, even 1960s and buy up property. If only your parents had held on to that property - it could of been yours one day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2014, 10:30 AM
 
28,111 posts, read 63,531,084 times
Reputation: 23240
Could be said about many periods of time.

I bought my home in East Oakland Laurel District for 50K... in 1985 only two years out of college.

In 2007, 22 years later, the indentical home next door went up 10x and sold for 510k.

In 2009 it sold for 80k.

In 2010 140k.

... and right now it is for sale for 399k

Friends paid 599k for a home in the Oakland Hills in 2005

In 2010 a similar home on their street sold for 320k and recently sold again for 650k

Real Estate has boom and bust cycles... some extreme and some not so extreme.

Areas like Moraga and Lafayette are places where homes were less expensive because they were "Far Away"... they also tended to have nice lots.

BART going in changed things... now folks could live the country life and take the train to the heart of San Francisco's financial district... plus the HOT summers were no longer such a bother as A/C gained in popularity.

Location, Location, Location...

The time to buy is when people are afraid and the water cooler Real Estate talk is all negative.

One of my co-workers had a very nice modest home... they paniked in 2010 and walk away when prices dropped... justifying it by saying they could rent for less... the payments had not changed so affordabililty isn't an issue.

Well, rents here have gone up every year... their condo rent now is more than their mortgage was on their house... they really miss their home and now find they probably couldn't afford it... no one made them sell... they just got scared or thought they were being smart jumping ship.

Last edited by Ultrarunner; 04-17-2014 at 10:52 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2014, 12:53 PM
 
409 posts, read 585,395 times
Reputation: 260
Homes in the U.S., generally speaking, are still cheap compared to most other developed world places, when accounting for relative differences in buying power.

Also, household income doesn't really determine your real estate buying power. It's really your household wealth that matters. I don't have high household income, but I already own real estate and have significant liquid investments in equities/mutual funds, so I have real buying power despite modest salary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2014, 04:07 PM
 
28,111 posts, read 63,531,084 times
Reputation: 23240
^^^ Very true... when colleagues from Germany and Switzerland visit San Francisco they find prices reasonable... even when it comes to Real Estate... guess it is all relative.
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:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:08 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top