Why is the Bay area more expensive than So Cal when So Cal is nicer? (Los Angeles: transplants, apartment)

[LoriBee62]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Bay Area-ites can't relate to LA. You'll never convince anyone who was born and raised in the area that SoCal is better.

And what I would add to this is: Why the big obsession with what people think about where you live?

It boggles my mind that so many people lose sleep over this. I like the bay area better than LA. Why does the OP give a F--ck?

That whole mentality is so narcissistic. "I need everyone to agree that my neighborhood is the best." Gawd, if we all patronize them, pat them on the head and say, "You're right, honey," will they do us the favor and go away?

[ccm123]

Being a Bay Area native that has lived in SoCal for more than 20 years, before moving back to the Bay Area, SoCal has some nice attributes. The cost of living is noticeably lower and there is not the degree of competition in the housing market, that we have in the Bay Area. Homes/apartments are generally larger in size and you can buy in a very nice area, for much less than you can here in the Bay Area.

The toughest part about SoCal is that the job market is really struggling and there are noticeably fewer openings for solid middle to upper-middle income type jobs.

I love the diversity of SoCal, the beaches, great (affordable) food, the museums, etc

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by ccm123

Being a Bay Area native that has lived in SoCal for more than 20 years, before moving back to the Bay Area, SoCal has some nice attributes. The cost of living is noticeably lower and there is not the degree of competition in the housing market, that we have in the Bay Area. Homes/apartments are generally larger in size and you can buy in a very nice area, for much less than you can here in the Bay Area.

The toughest part about SoCal is that the job market is really struggling and there are noticeably fewer openings for solid middle to upper-middle income type jobs.

I love the diversity of SoCal, the beaches, great (affordable) food, the museums, etc

SF is the only place around the Bay with small apartments, isn't it? We were just getting into this in a thread in the Europe forum. Europeans were saying the typical big city apartment was around 500 sq. feet. Closer to 250-350 in Paris. The 500 sq. ft ones are 1-br. apts. I told them 500 sq. ft. in most parts of the US was considered an efficiency studio, and that even studios, more typically, were around 850-950 sq. ft. 250 sq. ft. is considered a micro-studio, and is a new, and newsworthy, development on the West Coast. The Europeans were offended by this, and didn't believe me! They thought I was propagandizing, making things up. It got weird.

What's the average or typical apartment size in LA? Or San Diego?

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by ccm123

The toughest part about SoCal is that the job market is really struggling and there are noticeably fewer openings for solid middle to upper-middle income type jobs.

I'm worried that struggling job markets will become the norm in the US, a permanent norm. People will just get used to it being that way, and will give up hope that things can improve nation-wide. What's scary about that is, what happens when there's another recession on top of this absence-of-a-recovery from the last crisis?

[ccm123]

Generally speaking, most apartments/home in the Bay Area are smaller than in SoCal. The homes are built closer together here, to conserve space (remember that SoCal is pretty spread out). I don't know the average apartment size in SoCal. But, in terms of housing here, you pay more and receive "less" for your $.
The last home I owned in SoCal was over 1800 sq ft, here in the Bay, we make do with 1430 sq ft for a much higher price.

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

SF is the only place around the Bay with small apartments, isn't it? We were just getting into this in a thread in the Europe forum. Europeans were saying the typical big city apartment was around 500 sq. feet. Closer to 250-350 in Paris. The 500 sq. ft ones are 1-br. apts. I told them 500 sq. ft. in most parts of the US was considered an efficiency studio, and that even studios, more typically, were around 850-950 sq. ft. 250 sq. ft. is considered a micro-studio, and is a new, and newsworthy, development on the West Coast. The Europeans were offended by this, and didn't believe me! They thought I was propagandizing, making things up. It got weird.

What's the average or typical apartment size in LA? Or San Diego?

[pacific2]

FWIW, even though it's not LA or SD, or even a rental, the average condo/townhouse listing in my small OC city (located about midway between LA & SD) is 1359 sq ft. Size ranges from 560-2194 sq ft.
https://www.redfin.com/city/224/CA/A...6&market=socal

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

SF is the only place around the Bay with small apartments, isn't it? We were just getting into this in a thread in the Europe forum. Europeans were saying the typical big city apartment was around 500 sq. feet. Closer to 250-350 in Paris. The 500 sq. ft ones are 1-br. apts. I told them 500 sq. ft. in most parts of the US was considered an efficiency studio, and that even studios, more typically, were around 850-950 sq. ft. 250 sq. ft. is considered a micro-studio, and is a new, and newsworthy, development on the West Coast. The Europeans were offended by this, and didn't believe me! They thought I was propagandizing, making things up. It got weird.

What's the average or typical apartment size in LA? Or San Diego?

There were a lot of "micro" apartments created during WW II era in the SF Bay Area, because there was a severe housing shortage due to a huge influx of soldiers and industrial jobs. Buildings were being converted to lots of tiny apartments. This was the case for the building I managed in Santa Clara. It was originally a two-story hardware store. That building has 26 apartments, 20 of which are studios. Some are bigger than others, because of how they had to work with the space they had, but most are around 250 square feet max. The owner I worked for, had a couple other buildings just like that one, around the east Bay, too - Alameda and Hayward, if I remember correctly which buildings were where.

The war changed the SF Bay Area in a huge way. This is a great article on it:

World War II created industrial, cultural revolution in Bay Area - SFGate



From the above article:

"The influx had two results - a severe housing shortage (the vacancy rate in Oakland fell to 0.06 percent at one point) and the construction of wartime housing projects.

Places like Richmond simply exploded. Richmond grew from 20,000 to 100,000 virtually overnight."


I wasn't aware of how the war changed the SF Bay Area, until I managed that building in Santa Clara, and the owners told me about it. I find it fascinating.

Though, I wouldn't be surprised if many of the old buildings have been renovated and they enlarged the apartments. The closets, for instance, in the building I managed, were microscopic - perfect for soldiers, but not for today's tenants, as a rule.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by LoriBee62

Saying Southern California is nicer than the Bay Area is like saying peas are better than carrots. It's a matter of personal taste.

I'm a little surprised you don't know that. Seriosly?

I think you are getting a little carried away and taking this a bit too seriously. Yes I think that most people find So Cal to be more to their liking, but of course it is subjective. Yes, seriously.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

There was no option for "all of the above".

Bay Area-ites can't relate to LA. You'll never convince anyone who was born and raised in the area that SoCal is better. I can't even relate to that concept. Better, how? What is it you like about SoCal, OP? BTW, did you notice you're running out of water?

The water issue is a red herring as it hardly goes to aesthetics.

I love the weather, food, environment, constantly blooming flowers, beaches, swimming opportunities (many days here, such as today in my pool), opportunities to hike so close to home, access to two awesome cities (LA and SD), access to Palm Springs/Rancho Mirage/Cathedral City, and to top it off, it is only 4 hours to Vegas (not ugly Reno).

[spencer114]

I liked San Francisco. It is very pretty there. I didn't like the beaches (too damp and cold) and didn't enjoy being cold on the shady side of the street in early September. The city was very pretty to look at but for me was uninhabitable (I refuse to take a jacket to the beach in the summer while pretending to have "fun") and a damp cold in the summer is just bleak.

Like others from the East I assumed that California just got dryer and uglier the further south you went. A few years ago I went (kicking and screaming) on a trip to Los Angeles. I LOVED it. The landscape and topography is so much nicer than in Northern California (the north may be more dramatic and majestic). I was there in November which may have something to do with it; but, the weather was great. There was great visibility. During my stay the mountains had their first snow of the season so I got to see the city with a snowy backdrop (again, good visibility) too.

I really enjoyed downtown (the elevated parts were a bit off-putting) and the sprawl that gets so much negative press is actually more urban than Dallas' or Atlanta's downtown. Contrary to popular belief there were people on all of the sidewalks. Echo Park, Silver Lake, West Hollywood, Santa Monica...all were very walkable with very pretty flora. The tress of Brentwood made me (almost) cry. Watching the grid light up from the Griffin Observatory is magical. I can understand why housing is so expensive there.

But for the obvious reasons (geography, job market) SF is more expensive.