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.
That's not really true at all, in the 1970's CA home prices were pretty on par with the rest of the nation. Even through the 90's there wasn't nearly as much of gap as you see now compared with the rest of the nation.
They tanked to $350K not that long ago, not really that far from $300K, which is what it was in 2000 as well.
Well first of all, that data looks at 1 month (November 2007 compared to November 2008). It also includes several outlying counties (Sonoma, Napa, Solano). And if you look at the $350K weighted average figure, it's driven heavily by November sales in Contra Costa County for that month. But even at their lowest, San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Marin County, heck even Santa Clara County were still between $500K-$800K median sales price. Alameda fell to $360K and Contra Costa fell to $260K.
If SF, SJ, or San Mateo had a little November sales spurt, that $350K number would skew higher like those counties rather than lower like Contra Costa county. Not that the data is flawed, but it doesn't really tell a complete story.
Now consider this: Contra Costa County was the fastest growing county in the Bay Area between 2000 and 2010 (really at about twice the rate as any other county, and it added more people than counties larger than it such as Santa Clara and Alameda). It is perhaps the least built out county in the core Bay Area now, and yet now is one of the slowest growing counties in the core Bay Area, the only county in the core Bay Area to add less people from 2010-2014 than 2000-2010.
Congestion/traffic and other factors have really pushed growth inward into the most built out areas, areas already served by some semblance of transit and closer to employment centers. I think this is a longer term trend. Which means the most constrained areas of the Bay Area will see the population/employment growth, and it will be quite expensive.
If you really want to dig back, sure there was a time. But SF was even more expensive in today's dollars back in the 1800s than it is now. Flats in the 1850s/1860s were renting for $3K+/mo, in 1850s/1860s dollars. At least according to Herbert Asbury (Barbary Coast).
Well first of all, that data looks at 1 month (November 2007 compared to November 2008). It also includes several outlying counties (Sonoma, Napa, Solano). And if you look at the $350K weighted average figure, it's driven heavily by November sales in Contra Costa County for that month. But even at their lowest, San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Marin County, heck even Santa Clara County were still between $500K-$800K median sales price. Alameda fell to $360K and Contra Costa fell to $260K.
If SF, SJ, or San Mateo had a little November sales spurt, that $350K number would skew higher like those counties rather than lower like Contra Costa county. Not that the data is flawed, but it doesn't really tell a complete story.
Now consider this: Contra Costa County was the fastest growing county in the Bay Area between 2000 and 2010 (really at about twice the rate as any other county, and it added more people than counties larger than it such as Santa Clara and Alameda). It is perhaps the least built out county in the core Bay Area now, and yet now is one of the slowest growing counties in the core Bay Area, the only county in the core Bay Area to add less people from 2010-2014 than 2000-2010.
Congestion/traffic and other factors have really pushed growth inward into the most built out areas, areas already served by some semblance of transit and closer to employment centers. I think this is a longer term trend. Which means the most constrained areas of the Bay Area will see the population/employment growth, and it will be quite expensive.
If you really want to dig back, sure there was a time. But SF was even more expensive in today's dollars back in the 1800s than it is now. Flats in the 1850s/1860s were renting for $3K+/mo, in 1850s/1860s dollars. At least according to Herbert Asbury (Barbary Coast).
Ok? So do you think the price really changed the much in the few months before or after? The Bay Area is 9 counties, not sure why you're trying to cherry pick counties here and there to fit your argument. CC and Alameda are the 2nd and 3rd most populated counties after Santa Clara. Not sure how you think excluding certain counties tells a more complete story.
Contra Costa County is the 3rd fastest growing county out of the Bay Area's 9 from 2010-2014, what are you talking about?
The more expensive inner Bay Area places get the more that pushes growth and/or prices farther out, that's how it always worked. That's why Oakland is getting so expensive. Especially with stuff like the Concord Naval Weapons Station Development, one of the largest planned anywhere in the state, not sure why you think that somehow the outer parts of the Bay Area will stop growing. BART is extending even deeper into the suburbs too, they already have track laid out in Antioch and a Livermore extension is in the works so it's not like farther out suburbs aren't connected to transit either. Even the Bay Area has it's limits when it comes to prices.
You want to bring up price gouging during the gold rush or something from some book? lol. Look at the prices of eggs back then compared to now too! It is interesting, I remember learning about it in the 4th grade lol. You don't really have a memory of what home prices were like before but this gap between the Bay Area and the rest of the nation hasn't always been this pronounced. Many places have literally 3X-4X in value since the early 90's. That's based off my own personal memory and not some book too.
That's not really true at all, in the 1970's CA home prices were pretty on par with the rest of the nation. Even through the 90's there wasn't nearly as much of gap as you see now compared with the rest of the nation.
They tanked to $350K not that long ago, not really that far from $300K, which is what it was in 2000 as well.
Ok? So do you think the price really changed the much in the few months before or after? The Bay Area is 9 counties, not sure why you're trying to cherry pick counties here and there to fit your argument. CC and Alameda are the 2nd and 3rd most populated counties after Santa Clara. Not sure how you think excluding certain counties tells a more complete story.
Contra Costa County is the 3rd fastest growing county out of the Bay Area's 9 from 2010-2014, what are you talking about?
The more expensive inner Bay Area places get the more that pushes growth and/or prices farther out, that's how it always worked. That's why Oakland is getting so expensive. Especially with stuff like the Concord Naval Weapons Station Development, one of the largest planned anywhere in the state, not sure why you think that somehow the outer parts of the Bay Area will stop growing. You might BART is extending even deeper into the suburbs too, they already have track laid out in Antioch. Even the Bay Area has it's limits when it comes to prices.
You want to bring up price gouging during the gold rush or something from some book? lol. Look at the prices of eggs back then compared to now too! It is interesting, I remember learning about it in the 4th grade lol. You don't really have a memory of what home prices were like before but this gap between the Bay Area and the rest of the nation hasn't always been this pronounced. Many places have literally 3X-4X in value since the early 90's. That's based off my own personal memory and not some book too.
No, I don't want to cherry pick. But 1 month of data is what's not telling the complete picture. Maybe bookending months were similar. But looking at the chart a reader has no way of telling.
Moreover, who's to know if Contra Costa County had a sales spurt that month and other, more expensive yet still populous counties had fewer sales than is typical. Moreover, looking at one county, sales data could really go up or down. A county like Contra Costa county has large communities built out by the national homebuilders. The sales and pricing dynamic (fluctuations, volume, etc) are going to be different than in the other counties. Theoretically there could be larger swings.
Finally, I agree that weighting sales by units sold is appropriate as the article as done, just not for 1 month of data. One should probably look at trailing 12 or trailing 6 months. Just looking at 1 month, however, if you were to weight sales price by where people live, using the 9 counties listed, the average sales price would be close to $450K covering a region of well over 7 million people.
Contra Costa County grew by 5.9% from 2010-2014, same as San Francisco city. Other counties in the region grew by 1-6% from 2000-2010 while Contra Costa County grew by almost 11%. These same other counties in the region have all already doubled in some cases between 2010-2014 the growth they had for the full decade 2000-2010 whereas Contra Costa County has not seen the same uptick (would be faulty to say it has "slowed", but relative to the other counties it has).
In this cycle, as the Inner Bay has become more expensive, the Inner Bay has also grown a lot faster. You say that as the Inner Bay gets more expensive, the Outer Bay picks up the growth, but from ACS estimates over the last 4 years, this has not been the case. Not enough time to be sure, but this cycle and its drivers and demands appear to favor urban/infill over suburban/greenfield, pricing be dammed.
I don't think the outer parts of the Bay Area will stop growing, but I do think that as the whole region grows and traffic becomes that much worse, people will weigh their options and place more value on transit access and convenience to job centers, either of which favor Inner Bay over Outer Bay.
Time will only tell if 2010-2014 trends are going to remain in large part or if we'll see repeats of the 90s/2000s. And this goes for virtually all major metros, but given geography/topography and other nuances, becomes even more important for a place like the Bay Area.
Just note that I am not arguing with you or anyone that the Bay Area has its limits. I personally think we're brushing up against them now and you can feel it in the air. But I also don't think the Bay Area will ever see housing decline to as low as it has declined previously, which by the way, relative to the country, has for decades been elevated. When was the last time someone thought of San Francisco/Bay Area as "cheap"? I know things have skyrocketed since the 90s. Heck, this city is twice as expensive as Boston and DC and those cities are considered places that have seen rents and prices soar too, and at one point SF Bay Area was equivalent to them in terms of prices/rents. So yes, I realize the gap between Bay Area and rest of country has grown quite rapidly. All I'm saying is that there has always been some sort of gap. Whether that gap was a more manageable 1.5x or the 3-4x we're seeing today, there's been a gap. You may find it stupid or silly to even mention, but that gap was way more than 3-4x for a good chunk of the city's history. Has there ever been a point in time when there was no gap or when the "gap" was less than 1x such that Bay Area was less expensive than average for America?
I really don't think we're arguing with each other, just talking past each other.
It's also shocking how little you get for $1 million in those areas.
That's an understatement. The 1600 sf house that my family built in the Bay Area back in 1965 for 21K is now worth over 1.4 million. It's NOTHING special at all.
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.
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.
