Why is Beverly Hills so expensive? (Los Angeles, Santa Monica: to rent, hotels, find a job)

[brrabbit]

Originally Posted by CmpEngineer

Why is Beverly Hills so expensive? It is not near the ocean like Malibu or Pacific Palisades, so that Beverly Hills can get warm during the summer. Beverly Hills is in the middle of gang-infested smoggy Los Angeles.

I visited some family friends who live in the cheapest part of Beverly Hills (90211), and was not sure why they were willing to live in a small old house in Beverly Hills that was worth $1.4 million instead of living in a nice new large house in another city.

My job was located in Beverly Hills and one of my colleagues decided to move from a very nice apartments in WeHo he actually loved into Beverly Hills (and he did not like that apartment too much). His explanation was that schools in BH are much better (1), and they don't have any "open enrollment" for people not living in BH (2). While other schools might be decent as well, he felt that with Open Enrollment city would bus difficult kids from other neighborhoods (and all schools where he used to live before just did that) and he did not want any of that.

[jacktravern]

The thread is almost 10 years. The OP probably rejected Beverly Hills, moved to South Central and got killed in a drive by shooting. R.I.P.!!

[YoungTraveler2011]

Originally Posted by jacktravern

The thread is almost 10 years. The OP probably rejected Beverly Hills, moved to South Central and got killed in a drive by shooting. R.I.P.!!

lol'd

[ILUVLA]

The real estate in Beverly Hill is expensive, but if you have to ask how much - buying in Beverly Hills isn't for you. I don't own. I rent in 90212, which is the flats of the city. The rent is more expensive than some adjacent cities but is less than the beach cities. The 1 bedroom/1 and half bath apartment in the building next door to me just went for 3000/month. I live in a great 1 bedroom/1 bath and pay 1600/month with one parking space in the alley. There is rent control in Beverly Hills, but it's at 10%. Los Angeles's rent control is at 3%. However, in LA only apartments built before a certain year are eligible for rent control. In Beverly Hills, all apartments are rent controlled. Beverly Hills is its own city within Los Angeles (we don't vote for the LA Mayor because we have our own mayor.) As a result, trash, police, fire, and, best of all, schools are much better here than in Los Angeles. The police & fire are well trained/paid yet have a small town attitude and will come out to help for small matters (like turning off an uncooperative smoke alarm). I also work in Beverly Hills, so I walk to the office. I also walk to shop and eat, so it's like living in a commuter city (like NYC) without as many people or the noise. Beverly Hills is a pretty quiet city, as it shuts down about 10:00PM, so there's not much nightlife. But a quick drive to West Hollywood or Culver City can remedy that. I live around the corner from all the affordable shops and restaurants on South Beverly but can walk to the higher priced eateries north of Wilshire. There's an indie movie house a few blocks away and the AMC Theaters at Century City is a five minute drive. There's cheap gas at the corner of Robertson and Olympic. There's some nice parks (but no cemeteries) and it's relatively clean. You can walk the city at night and feel safe. I also find the city centrally located. I can get to the beaches, downtown or the Valley with relative ease. However, there is no freeway running through Beverly Hills, which helps keep it isolated but means dealing with street traffic to and from. Overall, if you don't need to live near the ocean, Beverly Hills is a perfect logical choice. So like others have pointed out, it's the best of both worlds, where you get city life without some of the downsides of urban living. If one has to pay a little more for that, quality of life is worth it.

[jm1982]

ILUVLA, would you still live in BH if you weren't paying $1600 for rent though?
I could see it hard for people to move if they are getting such a great deal (relative to market rents) on rent.
You are right about the services, police response is going to be a lot faster in BH versus L.A . When you actually need those services it can make a big difference. Sometimes between life and death. Although on the other hand your violent crime risk in BH is going to be a lot lower than most other parts of the L.A area .
West Hollywood even though it's viewed as upscale , actually has higher violent crime than many areas viewed as 'ghetto'.

[disgruntled la native]

Beverly Hills has EXCELLENT city services. The best in LA county. They really take care of their infrastructure, and response times are immediate. Of course, it helps that it's a tiny and wealthy city.

Weho is similar but they have a major problem with their police because they are on contract with LASD.

Santa Monica is decent, though not as good as BH. Culver City is the next step down.

I don't know enough about Inglewood, Glendale, Burbank, but I imagine they are better than LA.

LA city has horrible, horrible services. There's often only one LAPD officer on duty in the entire west westside (i.e. Palisades, Brentwood, WLA).

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by disgruntled la native

Beverly Hills has EXCELLENT city services. The best in LA county. They really take care of their infrastructure, and response times are immediate. Of course, it helps that it's a tiny and wealthy city.

Weho is similar but they have a major problem with their police because they are on contract with LASD.

Santa Monica is decent, though not as good as BH. Culver City is the next step down.

I don't know enough about Inglewood, Glendale, Burbank, but I imagine they are better than LA.

LA city has horrible, horrible services. There's often only one LAPD officer on duty in the entire west westside (i.e. Palisades, Brentwood, WLA).

Yeah it's a shame really.

That's crazy they would have only one officer on duty the entire west westside :

"The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), officially the City of Los Angeles Police Department, is the law enforcement agency of Los Angeles, California. With 9,843 officers[2] and 2,773 civilian staff,[2] it is the third-largest municipal police department in the United States"

I used to live in West L.A and I do remember there was mention there weren't that many officers working the area at the the time because they were working in rougher areas of the city.

But if they have 9,843 officers..how can they only have 1 for that area ?

[Taiko]

Originally Posted by jm1982

But if they have 9,843 officers..how can they only have 1 for that area ?

When the basic patrol unit has two officers? I guess the definition of west of the westside is the issue here. And a LAPD car patrolling along empty streets with walled and gated residences blocking the view form the street will do no more to stop residential burglaries then all the private security cars also rolling up and down empty streets.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by Taiko

When the basic patrol unit has two officers? I guess the definition of west of the westside is the issue here. And a LAPD car patrolling along empty streets with walled and gated residences blocking the view form the street will do no more to stop residential burglaries then all the private security cars also rolling up and down empty streets.

Yeah I know that in Brentwood at least many homes have gates and private security roaming around.
But definitely not the case for the entire Westside.

[BennyPhoenix]

SCHOOLS.
There are no gangs in the schools. THey are safe, clean, the students are not disruptive dumbarses....