They say a picture is worth a thousand words. This describes the Bay Area. (Walnut Creek: apartments, renting)

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by TR95

Most likely the house was less than 1,000 sf if your picture is meant to depict the 40s or 50s.

Plenty of ranchers in the 1000 - 2000 SF arena from those times especially if you are talking the 50s.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by BodegaHead

$1.60 in 1972 is equivalent to just over $9.00 now so minimum wage was similar back then. Housing was waaaay cheaper though for example the one poster's parents $16k house in 1965 is equivalent to $120k in today's money and those houses sell for $600-1.5 million now, 5-15 times as much and wages were equivalently similar in my opinion.

Example being, a boomer buys a house in 1985 for $100k and only makes 20k a year, the equivalent house value is $220k and salary is around 45k. Now buying a 220k house with a 45k job is possible if you save a little but today that house costs $850k and a lot of average jobs are still paying $45-50k which would be impossible to buy with. Or let's say in $1975 you bought a house for $60k and only made $15k a year that's like buying the house for $265k & making $70k a year which is much more realistic than our generations reality of making $70k a year and buying a house here for $850k which is impossible.

Also, it was before I was born but from what I've heard the old heads say rent was waaaaaay cheaper and anyone could rent an apartment and most people with a decent job or two incomes could rent a house. Now in my part of the Bay Area it's like $3,500-5000 a month just to rent a tiny ranch house plus utilities and other living expenses, ghetto apartment complexes are $2,000-4000 a month. Rents back in the day were much more affordable, hell even 10 years ago rents were way lower, we rented a 3 bed house in Santa Rosa for $1,100 now that house in that neighborhood in Bennett valley would be around $2,700-3000 a month even way out in Sonoma county,like $4,500 on the peninsula and like $10,000 in SF LOL!

As recently as the late 90s, when salaries had already climbed up quite a bit, you could still rent a house in the Sunset for 1000 - 2000 / Mo depending on the size.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

We still have about 4 households on our street that are from that era. Of course, none of their kids ended up living in The City / on The Peninsula - best case they are in the East Bay but many left the area altogether.

I don't plan on leaving. Although I could buy a 1/3 acre lot and a 2000 square foot house anywhere else I just can't leave. I'd lose everything I know.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by Moddedintegra56

do they even make SFH anymore. everything has been condos/townhomes attached, with high HOA.

I think I saw new SFH detached being built in DALY CITY, how much? starting in the 1mil+ and thats for the smallest plan starting.

what does middle class classify as in the US? the bay area is a diff beast for sure. According to wikipedia:

The term middle class in more colloquial language use may refer to all those individuals who might at one point or another be identified as middle class, as they occupy neither extreme of the socio-economic strata. Most of those with households income between $40,000 and $95,000 identify as "middle class".

Most middle class folks I know who make 40-95K house hold income int he bay are POOR. can't even afford those newly built condos that cost $600-700K in a bad area because the nice areas for same condos are more like $800-1Mil.

i dont care what people say im moving to the Valley. I can't leave CA. I don't have to work in tech so there is little reason for me to stay in the Bay. The many people who hate on the Valley with the air and location and say there is nothing here--well I'll have a nice big detached SFH and with the same pay I was making in the bay area, my mortgage and property tax will be low that I'll have so much money left over to do extra curricular activities and spending. The same people who hate can continue to do so with their $3000 rent living nearly paycheck to paycheck just to say they are living in the bay and hating on the people in the Valley.

HOAs are just to scam dumb money yuppie techies out of their paycheck.

[Ultrarunner]

The HOA where I have on property dates from 1948...

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by Bushrod Oak

What? HOA's have been around before the Tech boom even existed.

They've always been around to scam people who think they're "cool" living in a condo

[modernist1]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

They've always been around to scam people who think they're "cool" living in a condo

A troll-like comment. The arguments against condo living are there, but your assumption about 'cool' is preposterous (and sophomoric). An additional possible plus - as opposed to say, renting, is that if real estate prices go up, the owner has something to sell. In addition for those who want to live in the central city, a house might well not be an option or a choice.

[RMESMH]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

The HOA where I have on property dates from 1948...

I have a copy of the original deed from the house I grew up in in Lamorinda. It (or some attached document) references the much larger 'tract' (many, many acres) that was filed with the county in Martinez. The description of the 'tract' describes the restrictions....the most noteworthy of course later became unenforceable (thankfully)...no black people. The 'tract' was filed with the county in 1948.

[Ultrarunner]

The home I bought in Oakland near 98th Ave and Edes also came with unenforceable restrictions and it was a wartime tract built in 1945... the deed states no person of mongoloid race may reside except in the capacity of domestic servant... plus restrictions as to agriculture and livestock...

These are 1000 square feet homes on city lots very near the Oakland Coliseum.

Deed restrictions are still very common... my brother owns a ranch that dates back to the 1800's and there is a deed restriction against hog farming... it would seem every other type of farming is permitted except pigs.

[RMESMH]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

The home I bought in Oakland near 98th Ave and Edes also came with enforceable restrictions and it was a wartime tract built in 1945... the deed states no person of mongoloid race may reside except in the capacity of domestic servant... plus restrictions as to agriculture and livestock...

But wouldn't the racial part of that restriction be unenforceable? I thought that was outlawed in the 1960s.