Moved to the Bay for 1 year from out of state, moved back. My review of it. (Oakland: transplants, low crime)

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Nightmare Paint

I was curious so I looked, they are all under 1300 square feet and require work. Basically fixer uppers / small dumps. Fitting 3 bedrooms in 900-1300 square feet is like living in a sardine box.

Not all of them of are fixer uppers, some are just dated. But there seemed to be more and better (ie updated) options a few months ago, especially townhomes in Martinez. Not sure if inventory is down because the time of year or what.

I don't really think 1100-1300 sq feet is too small for a 3-bedroom depending on the layout, especially for a starter home.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Nightmare Paint

Very dated to the point of needing fixing up. It depends on if you have kids or not. Living in a place that small with 2 kids can work but it won't be very comfortable.

Maybe if they're teenagers sure, but small kids it's fine imo. Some of you seem rather finicky.

[04kL4nD]

Originally Posted by AZJD

A lot of people asked that.

100 degrees in Phoenix feels no different than 85 in the Bay.

Gosh I remember going hiking on Angel Island and thinking "Wow, it is hot!!". Looking at my phone and it said like 79 degrees.

Humidity makes a world of difference. No humidity in AZ.

And we have swimming pools, resorts for summer staycations, the mountains/forests (8k feet elevation) are 2 hrs north.

I think the whole "it's a dry heat!" thing is vastly overblown. Once you get past 105 degrees, it's just as miserable to me as high humidity in the 80s/90s. I was in PHX and Vegas this summer and it was essentially unbearable to be outside. I guess some people enjoy hot weather, but I am not one of them. 100+ day weather from May to September is a total deal breaker to me, no matter how cheap it is.

[kttam186290]

Originally Posted by AZJD

Moved my wife and two kids to the Bay for a work project for a year. We came from Phoenix area Arizona...

Spent a year in the East Bay. Housing even in Concord was 2X I was used to paying for my mortgage in Phoenix, for 1/2 the house and 50 years older, and in a questionable area. A huge downside in my opinion. Schools where we lived were ranked 2/10. And this to rent a home...needing $100,000 year salary yet all the other houses in the neighborhood are occupied by low income families but who have been there since 1970 so they really have little housing expense. Think about that...it took me $100,000 to live in a community full of high crime, awful housing, and neighbors where you have nothing in common for work and lifestyle. Just a weird dynamic.

...California is amazing yes, but not worth it if you struggle.

...And don't get me wrong. California is amazing. The weather, the scenery, absolutely endless things to do and see. San Francisco is one of the best cities in the world...

We are back in Phoenix now. Enjoying nice warm weather, dirt cheap housing that is 10X nicer than California, in top school districts, next to everything new and nice.

Would love to come back to California one day, but only if we can afford to OWN a decent home.

You should have looked in and around Los Angeles, rather than the Bay Area. There are lots of nice communities all around Southern California that cost a fraction of what they do in the Bay Area. Weather is warmer, beaches and coastal areas are more pleasant and, in my opinion, So Cal has a much more relaxed vibe. That may be because of its vastness, though.

The Thousand Oaks/Westlake Village/Agoura Hills area is just as nice as Lafayette/Orinda, but for quite a bit less.

Santa Clarita ranks on par with Pleasanton/Dublin/San Ramon as far as schools and quality of life, but is much more affordable.

There are also great cities to the east of L.A. in the Inland Empire where there are a significant number of middle-class families: Temecula, Murrieta, Menifee, Redlands, Rancho Cucamonga, Chino Hills, Brea, etc.

Southern California has more housing stock and larger areas of middle-class neighborhoods because it is not as dense and confined as the Bay Area.

San Diego is also more affordable than the Bay Area.

[kttam186290]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Concord would be upscale by SoCal standards.

That's funny, but......

No!

Concord is equal to the dingier areas of Anaheim, Fontana, or the San Fernando Valley (Reseda, Van Nuys).

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Nightmare Paint

Like you said, "In your Opinion". Just because you're willing to drop 400 K on a 1100 square foot shack in an Area with sub par schools, doesn't mean somebody who doesn't is "Finicky".

When you're trying to buy your first home to break into the housing market it kind of does. People on here seem lost on the concept of "trading up" later on the down the road. It's like some people need their first home to be their forever home with the best schools and 2K square feet.

[TheGreatCurve]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

We definitely do not need single family homes -- those should be banned -- but we could build many more dense residential buildings.

In fact, all of those old, crappy single family homes that look like shacks (compared to the solid houses on the East Coast) should all be razed to the ground and high-rise, high-density housing should be built in their place. We could literally accommodate 100 times more people in the same amount of land if we did that.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by kttam186290

That's funny, but......

No!

Concord is equal to the dingier areas of Anaheim, Fontana, or the San Fernando Valley (Reseda, Van Nuys).

Concord safer, better educated, and has higher incomes than Reseda, Van Nuys, and Fontana. It's income and crime is on par with Anaheim as a whole.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by kttam186290

That's funny, but......

No!

Concord is equal to the dingier areas of Anaheim, Fontana, or the San Fernando Valley (Reseda, Van Nuys).

No, you think far too highly of LA.

Concord overall is much nicer, and far preferable to those gross, dumpy areas.

Concord is more similar to Valencia/ Santa Clarita.

[TR95]

Originally Posted by sav858

Maybe if they're teenagers sure, but small kids it's fine imo. Some of you seem rather finicky.

Yes, those are the people that complain and expect a 1,800 to 2,000 sf house as 20 or 30 somethings in the best area with good schools. Those complainers should just move and have a better life in their own minds, just like the OP did. Makes complete sense.

Most people I know, including us, lived in a 1,300/1,400 sf house until the kids were close to 8-9, then moved on to a larger house. Shoot, we bought our first house before kids in a SoCal Beach town, and no one could believe we would live there and have kids grow up there. Well, guess what we weren't going to have kids for another 3-4 years anyway and the appreciation that followed allowed for a better place. Same can be said today. Can't afford the best places, buy somewhere you can afford and move later. Of course, by now after seeing a couple years worth of these whining complaints, that ship might have sailed, with only limited appreciation the next few years.

Just don't get why some on here feel they should complain about housing incessantly. It's old news, been going on for decades.