Is the SF Bay Area overrated? (Oakland, Napa: townhouses, square footage, safe)

[capoeira]

Originally Posted by Finper

wow beautiful!! My dream kitchen.. How much would that house cost in San Fran??

Its not available in city of San Francisco at any price with a nice 8,000 sq. ft lot. There are only 2 houses listed with lots lots over 5,000 sq ft and none over 6,000 sq ft. The decent sized lot instantly makes it much more livable than any house in San Fran.

Even a house for almost 4 million looks rundown inside. The bathrooms look like they are 50 years old and no kitchen is shown.


You can get something with 2,300 sq ft on a busy high traffic street for "only" 2.7 million.


Even high crime Visitacion Valley is close to a million! That's insane!


Look at what just 160k buys in the Midwest. This is not the best area but its much better than Visitacion Valley. It would be at least 1.5 million in SF.

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

You're wrong, I've been there several times. My SIL lives in Missouri

So why haven't you convinced her what a crappy place she is living in?
How can you let family live such a horrible life? She knows you are in California, right?
Maybe you can explain how San Francisco is worth the 2.5 million extra to get an equivalent home like that and better yet, how they can afford the 16,000 a month payments for the privilege of living in San Francisco vs St Louis.
Taking that $16,000 per month and investing it rather than paying mortgage payments allows you to retire with $3,000,000 in 10 years of living in horrible St Louis. $5.6 million in 15 years.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by capoeira

Its not available in city of San Francisco at any price with a nice 8,000 sq. ft lot. There are only 2 houses listed with lots lots over 5,000 sq ft and none over 6,000 sq ft. The decent sized lot instantly makes it much more livable than any house in San Fran.

...

Look at what just 160k buys in the Midwest. This is not the best area but its much better than Visitacion Valley. It would be at least 1.5 million in SF.

Um. Kinda depends on an individual’s definition of “livable”, eh? Lots (and lots and lots) of people don’t value big lots ... and many prefer little courtyard style properties ... easy care and all that.

And yeah, just look at what $160k buys in the mid-west. You’ll never find me back there for free ...

[Finper]

Originally Posted by capoeira

Its not available in city of San Francisco at any price with a nice 8,000 sq. ft lot. There are only 2 houses listed with lots lots over 5,000 sq ft and none over 6,000 sq ft. The decent sized lot instantly makes it much more livable than any house in San Fran.

Even a house for almost 4 million looks rundown inside. The bathrooms look like they are 50 years old and no kitchen is shown.


You can get something with 2,300 sq ft on a busy high traffic street for "only" 2.7 million.


Even high crime Visitacion Valley is close to a million! That's insane!


Look at what just 160k buys in the Midwest. This is not the best area but its much better than Visitacion Valley. It would be at least 1.5 million in SF.

I actually like the Vistacion house more then those ugly multi million dollar houses. The first house looks dark dirty and depressing. Is that laminate flooring on the wall? There's some kind of mass hypnotism going on in SF. I just don't get the appeal

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Um. Kinda depends on an individual’s definition of “livable”, eh? Lots (and lots and lots) of people don’t value big lots ... and many prefer little courtyard style properties ... easy care and all that.

And yeah, just look at what $160k buys in the mid-west. You’ll never find me back there for free ...

Thant because your boat won't cross the desert or mountains well

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by aslowdodge

Thant because your boat won't cross the desert or mountains well

Heh. It’s trailerable. And my tow van is diesel.

[likealady]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Um. Kinda depends on an individual’s definition of “livable”, eh? Lots (and lots and lots) of people don’t value big lots ... and many prefer little courtyard style properties ... easy care and all that.

And yeah, just look at what $160k buys in the mid-west. You’ll never find me back there for free ...

Sure some don't because of the upkeep, but I'm sure there's plenty of families that want a backyard for their kids to play in. There are people who want a decent sized garden with chickens and fruit trees and not some makeshift porch/balcony garden. Maybe a couple likes to do a lot of outdoor entertaining... nice to have a beautifully landscaped backyard with sections for outdoor furniture or a pond (especially with the Bay Area's mild climate). People with large dogs would like a safe space outside their home for their dog to get exercise.

5000 sf ft lot isn't even that big.

And I agree, that St. Louis house's kitchen is beautiful.

[JJonesIII]

Originally Posted by aslowdodge

So why haven't you convinced her what a crappy place she is living in?
How can you let family live such a horrible life? She knows you are in California, right?
Maybe you can explain how San Francisco is worth the 2.5 million extra to get an equivalent home like that and better yet, how they can afford the 16,000 a month payments for the privilege of living in San Francisco vs St Louis.
Taking that $16,000 per month and investing it rather than paying mortgage payments allows you to retire with $3,000,000 in 10 years of living in horrible St Louis. $5.6 million in 15 years.

Stop that! You know practicality and logic are not allowed here. Not to mention, money is no object here as it's cheered as the home of the 1%ers.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by likealady

Sure some don't because of the upkeep, but I'm sure there's plenty of families that want a backyard for their kids to play in. There are people who want a decent sized garden with chickens and fruit trees and not some makeshift porch/balcony garden. Maybe a couple likes to do a lot of outdoor entertaining... nice to have a beautifully landscaped backyard with sections for outdoor furniture or a pond (especially with the Bay Area's mild climate). People with large dogs would like a safe space outside their home for their dog to get exercise.

5000 sf ft lot isn't even that big.

And I agree, that St. Louis house's kitchen is beautiful.

I agree and certainly never suggested otherwise ... merely responded to the notion that “large” is more livable. For some it is ... for others it’s undesireable. There are LOTS, millions and millions, of people living happily in east coast urban settings with narrow row houses with no more than tiny courtyards and alleyways. Some dream of escaping to suburban or country settings. Others thrive on gentrifying those inner-city neighborhoods and living like termites.

Point is the old saying: one man’s meat is another man’s poison.

[JJonesIII]

Originally Posted by likealady

Sure some don't because of the upkeep, but I'm sure there's plenty of families that want a backyard for their kids to play in. There are people who want a decent sized garden with chickens and fruit trees and not some makeshift porch/balcony garden. Maybe a couple likes to do a lot of outdoor entertaining... nice to have a beautifully landscaped backyard with sections for outdoor furniture or a pond (especially with the Bay Area's mild climate). People with large dogs would like a safe space outside their home for their dog to get exercise.

5000 sf ft lot isn't even that big.

And I agree, that St. Louis house's kitchen is beautiful.

And I would agree with you. There may be people, couples, or even families (but I would say to a lesser extent) that may be comfortable with a very modest dwelling. But on the whole, I would think that would not be the case. So often we have people yelling the mantra..."we must have high density living", and point to a poll or two that supports their viewpoint (and it's not hard to find this type of information for most things....it's called confirmation bias). I would simply like to see a poll that asks people how they feel about living in a dwelling that is comparatively small (and probably no different price wise...in fact it's probably costlier on a square foot basis....and raise a family, entertain their guests, etc.). I would think the vast majority would prefer the things you mentioned and simply settle for less than that because of price constraints in the Bay Area. If people are content with that, more power to them, but I think we're kidding ourselves in thinking this is somehow preferred.

And btw, we already have high density housing to some extent. It's called roommates and most times, I see people complain about having to pay upwards of $1500 to live in a room (so clearly everyone doesn't think it's a good deal).