Was Los Angeles a better place to live back in the 90's? (real estate market, houses)

[Pennychaser11]

LA was great back in the 90's minus crime. Crime was just crazy back then. But if you had some education you could've easily escaped ghetto areas and rent a decent place in a nice neighborhood. Homes were affordable to most people. Now even the ghetto areas are expensive, college education doesn't pay fair wages, you need to get a roommate even if you have a college degree and traffic is horrendous.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by Pennychaser11

LA was great back in the 90's minus crime. Crime was just crazy back then. But if you had some education you could've easily escaped ghetto areas and rent a decent place in a nice neighborhood. Homes were affordable to most people. Now even the ghetto areas are expensive, college education doesn't pay fair wages, you need to get a roommate even if you have a college degree and traffic is horrendous.

Yeah exactly, this is what I was saying. I grew up in L.A on the westside, we didn't have drive by shootings. We heard about it through the news, or through rap music that came out of Compton/South Central.
I agree with all your points, it wasn't as big of a deal back then to live in a safe area or even close to the beach.

This is an interesting article about how Venice Beach is changing really rapidly a lot of it fueled by tech companies like SnapChat and Google
How Snapchat tech titans are harshing the mellow in Venice Beach - The Washington Post

A lot of articles being kicked out. One guy was quoted as saying that Venice Beach should not be known for starving artists, but for successful artists ...successful artists can pay the price.

I think it's interesting that the homeless population has been skyrocketing while prices keep going up and up. There was also mention of a commercial building that recently sold for over $40 million, and two years ago it sold for $20million.
I'm sure Arnold Schwarzenegger is making quite a bit of money if he still owns his Venice properties. He had invested in the area many years ago.

[Pennychaser11]

Originally Posted by jm1982

Yeah exactly, this is what I was saying. I grew up in L.A on the westside, we didn't have drive by shootings. We heard about it through the news, or through rap music that came out of Compton/South Central.
I agree with all your points, it wasn't as big of a deal back then to live in a safe area or even close to the beach.

This is an interesting article about how Venice Beach is changing really rapidly a lot of it fueled by tech companies like SnapChat and Google
How Snapchat tech titans are harshing the mellow in Venice Beach - The Washington Post

A lot of articles being kicked out. One guy was quoted as saying that Venice Beach should not be known for starving artists, but for successful artists ...successful artists can pay the price.

I think it's interesting that the homeless population has been skyrocketing while prices keep going up and up. There was also mention of a commercial building that recently sold for over $40 million, and two years ago it sold for $20million.
I'm sure Arnold Schwarzenegger is making quite a bit of money if he still owns his Venice properties. He had invested in the area many years ago.

I really miss the 90's. I was fortunate to have grown up in Beverly Hills. My parents were HS graduates from Asia, they couldn't and still don't english but father was a custom tailorer and mother was beauty parlor and they paid $650/month for 1 bed apt back in early 90's. We moved up to 2 bed apt in same street for $850/month and stayed there until 1999. Now same place costs $2200+ and building was crappy. I'm sure they'll have hard time paying that now. Friend of mine who lived at the 2 bed apartment we lived at, bought a 2 bed condo next door for $200K in 1995. Now that condo is valued at $800K+.

[West of Encino]

Originally Posted by Pennychaser11

I really miss the 90's. I was fortunate to have grown up in Beverly Hills. My parents were HS graduates from Asia, they couldn't and still don't english but father was a custom tailorer and mother was beauty parlor and they paid $650/month for 1 bed apt back in early 90's. We moved up to 2 bed apt in same street for $850/month and stayed there until 1999. Now same place costs $2200+ and building was crappy. I'm sure they'll have hard time paying that now. Friend of mine who lived at the 2 bed apartment we lived at, bought a 2 bed condo next door for $200K in 1995. Now that condo is valued at $800K+.

The 90s were a time when kids could play outside without worry of drive-by shootings.

What do you think is the cause of LA being so expensive and it's rapidly changing culture?

[CapRate]

Originally Posted by West of Encino

The 90s were a time when kids could play outside without worry of drive-by shootings.

What do you think is the cause of LA being so expensive and it's rapidly changing culture?

Hats completely false. Drive by shootings were waaaay more common in the 90s. I have no idea what you're talking about.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Always the contrarian ... I do have to point out the the full force of the cuts in defense and aerospace did not really hit until at least the mid 90s. The early 90s (riots and such notwithstanding) were not half bad in LA if one had the right sort of job. Whereas things now, for the classic aerospace / big hardware tech ecosystem, are pretty sad in The Southland.

Silver lining is the newer wave of aps / cloud / mobile. Maybe that will take off, we'll see.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by jm1982

People seem to be more calm and perhaps happy when day to day existence is not as much of a struggle.
There is no debate that housing was more affordable back then...also gasoline and several other things.
Even inflation adjusted.

Yes there were the riots and the Northridge earthquake too, but after these events for most people life went on.
Earthquake damage was worse in some parts of L.A versus others. The same with the riot damage. A lot of the destruction was in South L.A and Koreatown areas from the riots. Koreatown was not the hip area it is today.
Pretty much anyone with a stable job wouldn't have to consider living in South L.A or Koreatown back then because housing was more affordable

Not that many people were injured in the riots compared to the population at large - but the economic devastation touched the lives of a lot of people including people who lived in areas with no rioting. Countless companies closed down, many left the region, and the riots were a major reason why no companies wanted to stay in the region, along with the already bad bureaucracy, high taxes, and overregulation. Why invest your money if your facilities could be burned down and trashed, when other cities didn't have this risk? Or when your police department was known for both brutality and ineptitude a la New Orleans? The collapse of aerospace and runaway production were already resulting in out of control unemployment - the riots made things worse.

And it wasn't just South LA and Koreatown that had damage from the riots. Downtown, Westlake, Hollywood, Palms, Mid City, and Venice (the only place west of the 405 with rioting) also were affected.

It wasn't just in the "bad" neighborhoods that earthquake damage was severe. Just the opposite.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by majoun

Not that many people were injured in the riots compared to the population at large - but the economic devastation touched the lives of a lot of people including people who lived in areas with no rioting. Countless companies closed down, many left the region, and the riots were a major reason why no companies wanted to stay in the region, along with the already bad bureaucracy, high taxes, and overregulation. Why invest your money if your facilities could be burned down and trashed, when other cities didn't have this risk? Or when your police department was known for both brutality and ineptitude a la New Orleans? The collapse of aerospace and runaway production were already resulting in out of control unemployment - the riots made things worse.

And it wasn't just South LA and Koreatown that had damage from the riots. Downtown, Westlake, Hollywood, Palms, Mid City, and Venice (the only place west of the 405 with rioting) also were affected.

It wasn't just in the "bad" neighborhoods that earthquake damage was severe. Just the opposite.

There is risk everywhere, there have been riots in other cities too. Look at an area like Ferguson, it's not an area people would expect to have riots.

I never said it was in only in the bad neighborhoods that earthquake damage was severe. But I lived on the Westside and at the time and we thankfully didn't have any damage. I know others did though, and just depended on the house I suppose or exact area.

I wonder what efforts the city made if any to reassure companies and people that L.A was still a good place to live and do business. Probably nothing because the attitude of the politicians is always that people should put up with bunch of crap just to live in L.A

I was at a neighborhood council meeting once and the city councilman actually said , "Sure we have problems , but we should be grateful if you look at some places that don't have running water".. I was pretty surprised he had said that , but I guess that's the attitude.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by jm1982

There is risk everywhere, there have been riots in other cities too. Look at an area like Ferguson, it's not an area people would expect to have riots.

I never said it was in only in the bad neighborhoods that earthquake damage was severe. But I lived on the Westside and at the time and we thankfully didn't have any damage. I know others did though, and just depended on the house I suppose or exact area.

I wonder what efforts the city made if any to reassure companies and people that L.A was still a good place to live and do business. Probably nothing because the attitude of the politicians is always that people should put up with bunch of crap just to live in L.A

I was at a neighborhood council meeting once and the city councilman actually said , "Sure we have problems , but we should be grateful if you look at some places that don't have running water".. I was pretty surprised he had said that , but I guess that's the attitude.

What other cities had two of the most deadly and destructive riots in US history within the previous 30 years? Even Detroit and Baltimore had not seen a repeat of their '60s riots (Baltimore would in the 21st century, but that's another story). Certainly none of the other cities directly competing with L.A. While rioting spread to most western cities, the only other city in which rioting got serious was Las Vegas. San Diego had no rioting at all. So if you had a company and you wanted to locate in the western US, why would you go to L.A. when you could go to San Diego, the Bay Area, Phoenix, Tucson, Portland, Seattle, Salt Lake City, etc. Even if you were going to stay in the L.A. area, you didn't want to be in the city of L.A. That pattern had already been set.

There were some well intended efforts to try to retain business but they failed.


After L.A. Riots, A Failed Effort For A Broken City : NPR

The city never made any effort to try to retain people. The politicians then and now don't care.

[Northernest Southernest C]

Originally Posted by majoun

Even Detroit and Baltimore had not seen a repeat of their '60s riots (Baltimore would in the 21st century, but that's another story).

If you mean the riot that happened back in April with Fredie Gray etc you must know that the most recent was nothing like the scale of the 60s riots that riot made the one after Freddie Gray death look like child play. So I still wouldn't compare that to what happened in the 60s