[Raider111]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Yep. We found LA area rents to be similar (or even less in many cases) to FFC. Home prices (LA vs Bridgeport/Stamford/Norwalk) also similar, statistically. What people do is only look at the 'beautiful' areas they visit and think that's standard around the whole area, when it's not.

yeah, we've been through this before. LA County Median home is $630K (just the city 670K), FFC is $400K. Big diff.
Exclude the beautifuls like Bev Hills, Darien and those guys. Then the not so beautifuls -
Woodland Hills, Glendale, Pasadena, Burbank, Northridge, Encin, some others up there - all over $700K
vs
Stamford, Norwalk, Ridgefield Redding Fairfield Easton - All around 600K or less
No need to bother with the rest of CT, doesn't even come remotely close

[Stephy0519]

Originally Posted by Raider111

yeah, we've been through this before. LA County Median home is $630K (just the city 670K), FFC is $400K. Big diff.
Exclude the beautifuls like Bev Hills, Darien and those guys. Then the not so beautifuls -
Woodland Hills, Glendale, Pasadena, Burbank, Northridge, Encin, some others up there - all over $700K
vs
Stamford, Norwalk, Ridgefield Redding Fairfield Easton - All around 600K or less
No need to bother with the rest of CT, doesn't even come remotely close

On the Westside, where I live, in the neighborhood of Mar Vista (LA) or in Culver City (city in LA County) you won't get a house, that is decent, for below at least 800K. Both those areas are considered good, family neighborhoods. The valley, where you mentioned, are mostly families, etc.

You might get an 800 sq ft condo for 650k (my current condo which is 950 sq ft will most likely sell for closer to 800K) Compare that to a condo in say, SoNo--where you may spend 300-350K for the same sq footage, and updated.

Just crazy to think about. I am seriously enjoying LA, but I don't think I will ever buy here. It's much more realistic for me to buy back east (if I ever want to come back.) I've eyed Oxford or Fairfield.

FYI--my friends are buying an estate in Trumbull (Nichols)....for 900K. If you plopped it in Darien, I don't even want to think what it would go for.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by Raider111

yeah, we've been through this before. LA County Median home is $630K (just the city 670K), FFC is $400K. Big diff.
Exclude the beautifuls like Bev Hills, Darien and those guys. Then the not so beautifuls -
Woodland Hills, Glendale, Pasadena, Burbank, Northridge, Encin, some others up there - all over $700K
vs
Stamford, Norwalk, Ridgefield Redding Fairfield Easton - All around 600K or less
No need to bother with the rest of CT, doesn't even come remotely close

First of all, Woodland Hills is very affluent. Second, the rest of those communities can be compared to your second tier FFC towns, like Ridgefield, Fairfield, Redding, etc. All of those are over 700k (except maybe Fairfield).

Second, you might want to look again. Can't compare county - have to compare metro area. Bridgeport/Stamford/Norwalk, which doesn't include Danbury area I believe, actually has a higher median home price than LA/Long Beach.

Stamford/Norwalk metro: median home price 626k
LA/Long Beach: median home price 617k

Making 50k in Stamford, means you can make 47k in LA to maintain the same standard of living.

See bankrate.com - it's what I use and have found to be pretty accurate, as it takes every aspect of COL into account, not just one thing.

Additionally, I lived there. Did you?

[Raider111]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

First of all, Woodland Hills is very affluent. Second, the rest of those communities can be compared to your second tier FFC towns, like Ridgefield, Fairfield, Redding, etc. All of those are over 700k (except maybe Fairfield).

Second, you might want to look again. Can't compare county - have to compare metro area. Bridgeport/Stamford/Norwalk, which doesn't include Danbury area I believe, actually has a higher median home price than LA/Long Beach.

Stamford/Norwalk metro: median home price 626k
LA/Long Beach: median home price 617k

Making 50k in Stamford, means you can make 47k in LA to maintain the same standard of living.

See bankrate.com - it's what I use and have found to be pretty accurate, as it takes every aspect of COL into account, not just one thing.

Additionally, I lived there. Did you?

I believe you once mentioned Woodland hills as a more affordable alternative there.
The comparisons are close enough, can't be exact. I see $500K median sales the past year for Redding, and $600K for Ridgefield. Even a large city like Glendale with about 200K pop has a median of $770K the past year - outrageous. You would think the opposite.

Same for San Diego area. Rinse/repeat. (I did sort of live there)

[Stylo]

Bay Area seems to trump everything though. $2.5 million median in Palo Alto. Insane.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by Raider111

I believe you once mentioned Woodland hills as a more affordable alternative there.
The comparisons are close enough, can't be exact. I see $500K median sales the past year for Redding, and $600K for Ridgefield. Even a large city like Glendale with about 200K pop has a median of $770K the past year - outrageous. You would think the opposite.

Same for San Diego area. Rinse/repeat. (I did sort of live there)

A more affordable alternative to the inner ring LA suburbs would be San Fernando/Riverside/Bernardino areas. That's about 45 minutes outside of LA (similar to SW CT in distance) and with a lower cost of living than both SW CT and the immediate LA area, where you can get a modest but nice home for 375-425.

Again, people visit the premier areas of LA and think every town has a $1m+ average home price. There is a lot more to LA than the west side, Pacific Palisades, Santa Monica, Malibu, etc. LA's average resident doesn't live there, just like greater NYC's average resident doesn't live in Greenwich, Alpine and Scarsdale. They live in towns like Norwalk, Nyack, White Plains, etc.

Have to compare apples to apples.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by Stylo

Bay Area seems to trump everything though. $2.5 million median in Palo Alto. Insane.

Insane, but that bubble is starting to lose air from what I've read.

[Raider111]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

A more affordable alternative to the inner ring LA suburbs would be San Fernando/Riverside/Bernardino areas. That's about 45 minutes outside of LA (similar to SW CT in distance) and with a lower cost of living than both SW CT and the immediate LA area, where you can get a modest but nice home for 375-425.

Again, people visit the premier areas of LA and think every town has a $1m+ average home price. There is a lot more to LA than the west side, Pacific Palisades, Santa Monica, Malibu, etc. LA's average resident doesn't live there, just like greater NYC's average resident doesn't live in Greenwich, Alpine and Scarsdale. They live in towns like Norwalk, Nyack, White Plains, etc.

Have to compare apples to apples.

Depends on what apples to apples means. To me and many it's location and commute. I don't care about town affluence levels. In FFC I can comfortably get 2000+ sq ft, 4 beds, approp sized lot, right near the coast (less than a mile as the crow flies) and 1/2 hour commute to work (spouse has 5 min commute), and were not in Bridgeport/Stratford/Trumbull and the schools are good. Not as easily done out there.

[Raider111]

Originally Posted by Stephy0519

FYI--my friends are buying an estate in Trumbull (Nichols)....for 900K. If you plopped it in Darien, I don't even want to think what it would go for.

Holy S, you can buy your own kingdom in Trumbull for that much

[CEP_830]

I agree. My husband and I make avg $90k a year together, but after cost of living, student loans, daycare costs (which is another mortgage payment), and regular living expenses, we are LEFT WITH PRACTICALLY NOTHING. I just can't get ahead and I'm trying to find a way forward.