Bay Area is more dangerous and "ghetto" than the LA Area (Los Angeles: low income, transplants)

[NorCal Dude]

And here's a weird California phenomenon: ever notice that the more well-to-do people live on the hills, while the poor people live in the flat areas? In my part of the world, its usually the poor people that live in the hills, while the rich live in the valuable flat lands. Good use of land, eh?

becoming more like mexico by the day!

[mini_cute]

isn't LA sometimes called New Tijuana?

[majoun]

Originally Posted by mini_cute

isn't LA sometimes called New Tijuana?

San Diego and Tijuana are the same city divided by a border, like East and West Berlin.

The way the L.A. economy is it's more New Detroit than New Tijuana

[Lifeshadower]

Originally Posted by sonarrat

Actually, flat land is still more expensive, and it's because of that phenomenon that you see all the upscale housing in the hills. If you were to try and build something like the Blackhawk subdivision on flat ground, it would be prohibitively expensive. That's why the new single-family subdivisions in city centers are in rotten locations and crammed into postage stamps, whereas the upscale developments in the hills are much less dense and sell for far less per square foot of land. If you doubt this, compare the cost of a half-acre in Los Altos Hills vs. midtown Palo Alto. The difference is in the millions of dollars rather than thousands.

The exception to this is San Francisco, a town in which hills are no obstacle to density or accessibility.

Well, I guess it depends which area we are talking about. If flat land is at a premium (like on the Peninsula), then of course it would be more expensive than the hills.

However, I only bring that up because in most areas where I've lived in California, the properties in the hills usually come with a view, which is why its more expensive than the flat areas. I've seen it in LA and in the East Bay. Also, think about beach front properties. The properties that are on the cliffs overlooking the ocean are usually way more expensive than the ones right on the beach, even though the property in the hills is probably way more expensive to insure.

Since my family is from the Philippines/Southeast Asia (that's what I meant by my part of the world, not LA ), land in the hills is usually much much cheaper because the flat land usually contains the valuable farm land near silty river beds, while the hills aren't arable at all. Kind of role reversal there. In Latin America, much of the same rings true there OUTSIDE of the cities. Since the US is an urban society and is a much bigger country with way more arable land, then it doesn't matter at much since we don't live off the land as much as we used to.

[sonarrat]

Originally Posted by Lifeshadower

Well, I guess it depends which area we are talking about. If flat land is at a premium (like on the Peninsula), then of course it would be more expensive than the hills.

However, I only bring that up because in most areas where I've lived in California, the properties in the hills usually come with a view, which is why its more expensive than the flat areas. I've seen it in LA and in the East Bay. Also, think about beach front properties. The properties that are on the cliffs overlooking the ocean are usually way more expensive than the ones right on the beach, even though the property in the hills is probably way more expensive to insure.

It's true that a lot of expensive properties are built in hilly areas because of the views, privacy, quietness etc. But I think the main draw for a lot of people is that they want space. My parents have a house on a half-acre plot in the hills east of Morgan Hill. It's a big house with a lake view, and it's probably worth about $750K in today's market. There's a similar house in the flatlands, in the same school district, with a much smaller quarter-acre lot and it's $1M. I don't know if you're familiar with Morgan Hill, but they're not exactly hurting for space. There's miles and miles of unused land. But the inconvenience of being in the hills, and having to dodge deer and turkeys every day on the way in to work, and having to pay extra for utility delivery, hurts the value. From an investment standpoint I would always prefer flat land to hilly land.

Since my family is from the Philippines/Southeast Asia (that's what I meant by my part of the world, not LA ), land in the hills is usually much much cheaper because the flat land usually contains the valuable farm land near silty river beds, while the hills aren't arable at all. Kind of role reversal there. In Latin America, much of the same rings true there OUTSIDE of the cities. Since the US is an urban society and is a much bigger country with way more arable land, then it doesn't matter at much since we don't live off the land as much as we used to.

When it comes to flat land in urban areas, it usually winds up being priced as if it was going to be subdivided by a builder, because they are keen on packing them in nice and tight and turning a tidy profit. But if you get way out of town towards San Martin and Gilroy, then people start thinking in terms of farmland again, because the builders aren't interested in putting one house on 40 acres and selling it.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by majoun

San Diego and Tijuana are the same city divided by a border, like East and West Berlin.

The way the L.A. economy is it's more New Detroit than New Tijuana

Huh??? That's a gross oversimplification.

[NorCal Dude]

Yea when some one says sd and tj are the same city, I have to wonder if they have even ever been to either city. Its like juarez and el paso. Night and day. Civilization and chaos.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

Yea when some one says sd and tj are the same city, I have to wonder if they have even ever been to either city. Its like juarez and el paso. Night and day. Civilization and chaos.

The same was true of West Berlin and East Berlin before the wall came down. Freedom vs. dictatorship. TJ is going through a very unfortunate period in its history right now, but culturally it is the twin of SD and within the "Calisphere". And yes, I've been to both TJ and SD.

[andyadhi01]

Originally Posted by Golem1979

I live in the Sunset district, which is not a high crime area.

That is a myth. Sunset already had few high profile homicides this year and has many problems and is generally very run down. Only people in Sf thinks that it is a nice area.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by majoun

The same was true of West Berlin and East Berlin before the wall came down. Freedom vs. dictatorship. TJ is going through a very unfortunate period in its history right now, but culturally it is the twin of SD and within the "Calisphere". And yes, I've been to both TJ and SD.

The two cities being next to one another doesn't mean they're anything alike (First world vs. third world ya know?). You may have been to both places but I live in one and have been to the other many times.