Do you think residents in the San Fernando Valley behave differently than the rest of Los Angeles? (Woodland: renting, home)

[nowincal11]

The mid Valley historically I'm told was heavily traditionally white until the 1960s or 1970s. A lot didn't really even move to LA, but to Bakersfield, original residents of San Bernardino County, Riverside County. Lots of former Southerners in parts of Orange County, but this was generations back.

[BRinSM]

Originally Posted by MassVt

So, just out of curiosity, where would be the descendents of the Okies from the 1930s be living now ( or the postwar-Midwest transplants)? Perhaps they have just blended in...

because farming was a larger industry in the central valley of CA, many Okies/Arkies ended up there (think Fresno, Bakersfield, etc.). The legacy of these emigrants can be seen in the conservative values still held in this region of CA. additionally, Bakersfield was a major center for country music at one point. as for other midwesterners, they ended up all over the place. my family traces it roots back to illinois and minnesota. after the move to CA some landed in LA, others in orange county. Ultimately, everyone ended up in OC by the 60s and have since scattered all over the western US. I think this is a fairly common story for many people who are second, third, or even fourth generation californians.

[MassVt]

Originally Posted by BRinSM

because farming was a larger industry in the central valley of CA, many Okies/Arkies ended up there (think Fresno, Bakersfield, etc.). The legacy of these emigrants can be seen in the conservative values still held in this region of CA. additionally, Bakersfield was a major center for country music at one point. as for other midwesterners, they ended up all over the place. my family traces it roots back to illinois and minnesota. after the move to CA some landed in LA, others in orange county. Ultimately, everyone ended up in OC by the 60s and have since scattered all over the western US. I think this is a fairly common story for many people who are second, third, or even fourth generation californians.

Thanks; I'm not surprised that the orginal postwar-midwest transplants have since dispersed to the LA suburbs, and then the exurbs, and then to different part of CA and the West Coast, probably in part due to rising housing costs, or an attempt to find a slice of heaven on earth. I'll bet that those ranches and split-levels, so cheap to buy in 1959, are ridiculously expensive today, forcing the 3rd and 4th generations to look elsewhere for their future..

[BRinSM]

Originally Posted by MassVt

Thanks; I'm not surprised that the orginal postwar-midwest transplants have since dispersed to the LA suburbs, and then the exurbs, and then to different part of CA and the West Coast, probably in part due to rising housing costs, or an attempt to find a slice of heaven on earth. I'll bet that those ranches and split-levels, so cheap to buy in 1959, are ridiculously expensive today, forcing the 3rd and 4th generations to look elsewhere for their future..

you got it! traditional homes in the inner suburbs of LA (south valley, westside, san gabriel valley and to a lesser extent south LA) are now very expensive. south LA homes probably start around $200k (read: high crime/poor schooling neighborhoods), while westside neighborhoods from the mid century start at $600k at a very minimum and go way up from there. the valley is no slouch either with traditional homes in nicer areas in the southern portion starting in the $400s-$500s. vegas and phoenix are certainly appealing on a household income under $100k when compared to home prices in LA.

[SalParadise]

Originally Posted by MassVt

So, just out of curiosity, where would be the descendents of the Okies from the 1930s be living now ( or the postwar-Midwest transplants)? Perhaps they have just blended in...

Some Oakies did settle in Los Angeles. By at least one estimate nearly 40% of them chose to settle LA in the late 1930's. Of course, they were not welcomed with open arms but many of them stayed and found a way to survive.

OKIE MIGRATIONS

None other than Woody Guthrie first came to Los Angeles in the late 1930's. He lived in LA from 1937 to about 1941. It was in LA where he made his first strides at national fame on the LA based KFVD radio station.

Los Angeles Downtown News and Information - LA Downtown News Online > Archives > News > Property Owner Gets Guthrie Fellowship

[majoun]

Originally Posted by BRinSM

you got it! traditional homes in the inner suburbs of LA (south valley, westside, san gabriel valley and to a lesser extent south LA) are now very expensive. south LA homes probably start around $200k (read: high crime/poor schooling neighborhoods), while westside neighborhoods from the mid century start at $600k at a very minimum and go way up from there. the valley is no slouch either with traditional homes in nicer areas in the southern portion starting in the $400s-$500s. vegas and phoenix are certainly appealing on a household income under $100k when compared to home prices in LA.

There's also another aspect to the story: high housing prices have made some of the kids/grandkids of the postwar midwest transplants (like myself) think of homeownership as something that we will never achieve and accept we will rent all of our lives. Even my generation (I'm close in age to Charles) thinks of ownership as something that's only possible through inheritance or wealth.

In California, the new "traditional home" is looking like a thing of the past: California economy: UCLA forecast of housing shift is bad news for California's economy - Los Angeles Times

Note that even those who've gone to Vegas, Phoenix, Portland, etc. have not always wound up in "traditional homes".

What you've said about your own family is similar to those few relatives of mine who came out from the midwest, except none wound up in OC.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by West of Encino

I haven't been to the San Fernando Valley in a long time. Do you think the attitudes of the residents there are different compared to the rest of the Los Angeles city?

I've been reading threads about the locals there and they were mixed.

It probably depends on where you live in the Valley. The closer you are to the city proper (L.A, that is ) the more liberal and trendy; maybe contemporary is a better word. The fruther out you go, the more families you will see and the overall attitude will be different, but every type of person and attitude you can imagine can be found anywhere in the Los Angeles metro area.

Nita

[MassVt]

Originally Posted by majoun

There's also another aspect to the story: high housing prices have made some of the kids/grandkids of the postwar midwest transplants (like myself) think of homeownership as something that we will never achieve and accept we will rent all of our lives. Even my generation (I'm close in age to Charles) thinks of ownership as something that's only possible through inheritance or wealth.

In California, the new "traditional home" is looking like a thing of the past: California economy: UCLA forecast of housing shift is bad news for California's economy - Los Angeles Times

Note that even those who've gone to Vegas, Phoenix, Portland, etc. have not always wound up in "traditional homes".

What you've said about your own family is similar to those few relatives of mine who came out from the midwest, except none wound up in OC.

Good post; this then begs the question:

Would you rather buy a home in an area that you're only "lukewarm" about, or rent forever in an area that you love to death?

The easy answer, for some, would be a move back to the Midwest ( Chicago, Minneapolis, etc), in search of cheaper housing; although you would lose the ocean view, you'd stil have plenty of lake water ( Lake Michigan, and Minnesota's 10,000 lakes; Chicago's lakefront is gorgeous). But I suppose that many Angelinos will adjust their sights, and perhaps try to buy a cheaper condo, or just save money originally meant for a home purchase, and just fund their retirement, and continue to rent..

[Charles]

Originally Posted by MassVt

Good post; this then begs the question:

Would you rather buy a home in an area that you're only "lukewarm" about, or rent forever in an area that you love to death?

The easy answer, for some, would be a move back to the Midwest ( Chicago, Minneapolis, etc), in search of cheaper housing; although you would lose the ocean view, you'd stil have plenty of lake water ( Lake Michigan, and Minnesota's 10,000 lakes; Chicago's lakefront is gorgeous). But I suppose that many Angelinos will adjust their sites, and perhaps try to buy a cheaper condo, or just save money originally meant for a home purchase, and just fund their retirement, and continue to rent..

I'd rather rent in Los Angeles than live anywhere in Chicago. The older I get, the colder cold feels. Besides, just because a person rents doesn't mean they're eliminating wealth building. A person could rent and invest a lot of money and come out in a good financial position. Home equity isn't the only wealth a person can build.

Retired in Chicago


Retired in LA

[MassVt]

Originally Posted by Charles

I'd rather rent in Los Angeles than live anywhere in Chicago. The older I get, the colder cold feels. Besides, just because a person rents doesn't mean they're eliminating wealth building. A person could rent and invest a lot of money and come out in a good financial position. Home equity isn't the only wealth a person can build.

Retired in Chicago


Retired in LA

Maybe the guy in Chi is just "windswept" from trying to dock his yacht on Lake Michigan, while the LA guy has taken great care to appear "dapper" while emerging from his dank 2-room studio apt in the bad side of Hollywood.

But perhaps not..

I agree with you about the renting aspect; you can still attain a decent portfolio without owning..