Real Estate in your city

[Don't Be That Guy]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

The federal government is just sitting there as prices across the country are soaring? It was cute when it was just the rich areas of the Bay Area because they could afford it, but now it's spread to literally every corner of the region, and the rest of the country is facing a crisis.

The federal government has few tools to address what is a mostly state and local issue. The feds can't make local governments loosen land-use restrictions that are keeping housing supplies well below the demand. Now, most states can to various degrees, but look at how SB 50 fared in California, or how state-level environmental review laws encumber development.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Why? lol. This seems to be the antithesis of what people are claiming to be Chicago's strength: that it's cheap. If that is true then buying Chicago stock would be a bad deal, right? You should be buying stock in a place that is keeping pace, or outpacing, the market as a whole.

I spot checked Chicago's historical median price just to loosely confirm a suspicion that I had, which is that Chicago was previously an expensive city but isn't anymore (for whatever reason). In 1980, Chicago's median sales price for single family homes was $70,000, and the U.S. median was $47,200. So Chicago was roughly 50% more expensive than the U.S. as a whole. In 2020, the U.S. median sales price was roughly $350,000, and Chicago's was $316,000. So today Chicago is inexpensive to the U.S. median.

Checking this against "expensive" San Francisco, the data I could find suggests that the median there was in the $180,000 range around 1983 (calculated using the Case-Schiller index, but if someone has an actual number for 1980 that would be helpful). If what I calculated is correct, that is almost 4x the national median of $47,200 in 1980. Interestingly, the median in San Francisco in 2020 was about $1.5M, or roughly 4.5x the U.S. median.

In other words, San Francisco isn't really that expensive today from a historical (1980) perspective -- today it's only about 13% more expensive relative to the U.S. median than it was in the 1980s. But Chicago is MUCH cheaper from a historical (1980) perspective, as it's median is -50% off from what it was relative to the U.S. in 1980. If Chicago's market had appreciated in parallel to the U.S. over the past 4 decades, Chicago's median should be around $525,000 today.

^ That's interesting

I guess chasing away the middle class (which Chicago did with a 'don't let the door hit you on the way out!' attitude as usual) didn't work out as well for Chicago as it did with coastal cities.

Seriously, I would love if the data you posted could be shared with some of Chicago's more douchy Aldermen who are convinced beyond reason that gentrification is the evil 'G' word and is the biggest challenge facing Chicago...

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by Don't Be That Guy

The federal government has few tools to address what is a mostly state and local issue. The feds can't make local governments loosen land-use restrictions that are keeping housing supplies well below the demand. Now, most states can to various degrees, but look at how SB 50 fared in California, or how state-level environmental review laws encumber development.

At the end of the day, the return on a house over the long haul is barely 2 percent. You could probably stay a renters and make as much dough if you invested wisely. I don't put much stock in rising home prices as much as other people do even after a homeowner for the last 4 years. Its cool but its not headache free....

[sopas ej]

How about this charmer?

In my godfather's old neighborhood:

Mountain Views in Highland Park

Spend your evenings around the outdoor firepit or al fresco dining with the twinkling lights of the city below





Link: https://www.theeastsiderla.com/spons...xtual-fallback

[badrunner]

Highland park is still relatively affordable

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

High rents without physical improvements is just wealth extraction.

No. High rent only sucks for natives who don't want to live with relatives. Otherwise it keeps riff-raff like myself out of high-priced areas or entire cities.

Today's high prices are being caused by two broad issues:
1. Far more people born in 1990 than in 1975
2. Sharp decline in speculative suburban SFH and condominium construction since 2008

Every U.S. city was surrounded by continuous suburban development from about 1950 until 2008. The scale of housing construction outpaced population/household growth in most metro areas, causing the cities to decline in population and households. Thousands of prewar SF homes and multifamilies were abandoned and torn down in most U.S. cities. Since the collapse, suburban development has slowed to a trickle in most U.S. areas due to the banks self-imposing restrictions on how they finance condos and SFH subdivisions.

We are also not seeing existing apartment buildings converted to condos or the construction of spec condo towers in any but the largest U.S. cities.

[sopas ej]

From the Los Angeles Times:

What $700,000 buys in seven L.A. communities

By JACK FLEMMING | STAFF WRITER
MAY 25, 2021 5 AM PT

It’s no secret: L.A.’s historically hot real estate market is brutal for buyers. The pandemic-fueled housing boom saw L.A. County’s median home price rise to $750,000 in April, a 19% increase year-over-year.

Bidding wars and a shortage of sellers are making good deals hard to come by, but there are still plenty of great options if you look in the right neighborhoods. Here’s a look at what roughly $700,000 buys right now in seven L.A. communities.


City Terrace

Tucked just south of the 10 Freeway, City Terrace is a small, hilly community with winding streets and a healthy supply of Spanish Colonial Revival-style homes. Empty lots sell for between $100,000 and $200,000, while the few houses on the market are priced between $500,000 and $800,000.


3916 Ramboz Dr., Los Angeles, 90063 (Ace Misiunas)

The house: Dressed in all black, this bold 1950s Midcentury comes with a recently remodeled main home that covers 952 square feet and a bonus space with just over 300 square feet. The main event comes out back, where tiered gardens and two platform decks take in sweeping city views.

The address: 3916 Ramboz Dr., Los Angeles, 90063

The price: $725,000

The specs: Three bedrooms and two bathrooms in 1,264 square feet

The agent: Samira Tapia of Compass


Historic Filipinotown

Dubbed HiFi, Historic Filipinotown enjoys a central location with easy access to both Vista Hermosa Natural Park and Echo Park Lake. You’ll be hard-pressed to find many single-family homes for under $1 million, but there are a good number of duplexes and condos up for grabs for cheaper.


249 N. Bonnie Brae St. #3, Los Angeles, 90026 (Dusan Simonovic for Estate Photos LA)

The house: Centrally located near Echo Park Lake, this bright three-bedroom unit sits on the top level of a gated “tenancy in common” building, which means that residents share ownership and maintenance of the property with the other residents. This place includes recessed lighting, dual-pane windows and a private outdoor patio.

The address: 249 N. Bonnie Brae St. #3, Los Angeles, 90026

The price: $689,000

The specs: Three bedrooms and two bathrooms in 1,138 square feet

The agent: Elizabeth Cappola of Coldwell Banker Realty


Boyle Heights

Known as a bastion of Latino culture, Boyle Heights boasts good food, a great location and housing stock that has become more expensive over the years due to gentrification. The 12 single-family homes currently on the market range from $399,000 up $1.2 million.


3306 Gleason Ave., Los Angeles, 90063 (Joseph Cordova)

The house: A yellow door offsets the blue exterior of this remodeled one-story with new floors, new tile, new appliances and a new kitchen. For extra income, buyers can rent out the back bedroom, which comes with its own entrance and kitchen.

The address: 3306 Gleason Ave., Los Angeles, 90063

The price: $688,000

The specs: Four bedrooms and three bathrooms in 1,262 square feet

The agent: Joseph Cordova of Castle Estate Properties


Downtown L.A.

Downtown L.A., like many vertical-living communities, became slightly less attractive during the pandemic as homebuyers across the country opted for more space — even if it meant a longer commute. The trend made it a relatively affordable place to land if you don’t need more than one or two bedrooms, and there’s a host of options in every downtown district with views and amenities.


1100 S. Grand Ave. Unit A409, Los Angeles, 90015 (Steve Zarikyan)

The house: The bones of this artsy live-work space date back to 1923, but it was converted into a loft in 2005 and features 12-foot ceilings, exposed air ducts and original concrete columns. A private balcony takes in views of the South Park neighborhood, and building amenities include a sand volleyball court, basketball court and three-lane lap pool.

The address: 1100 S. Grand Ave. Unit A409, Los Angeles, 90015

The price: $718,000

The specs: Two bedrooms and two bathrooms in 1,160 square feet

The agents: Greg Stangl and Arrington Williams of the Agency


Harvard Heights

There’s loads of architectural history in Harvard Heights. The small, dense neighborhood lies within a historic overlay zone, and it also houses what’s thought to be the last L.A. home designed by the iconic Craftsman duo Greene and Greene. For food, stop by Mexican joint Guelaguetza, which landed on the 2020 L.A. Times list of the 101 best L.A. restaurants.


1731 S. Normandie Ave., Los Angeles, 90006 (Preview First)

The house: Built 120 years ago, this three-bedroom bungalow draws the eye with a front yard of citrus trees and a spacious front porch. Out back, there’s a covered deck, grassy yard and garage.

The address: 1731 S. Normandie Ave., Los Angeles, 90006

The price: $700,000

The specs: Three bedrooms and two bathrooms in 1,176 square feet

The agent: Shaun Radcliffe and Michelle Silvestri of Coldwell Banker Realty


South L.A.

South L.A. is huge. According to The Times’ Mapping L.A. project, it spans more than 50 square miles with 28 neighborhoods, and therefore offers a vast variety of housing stock. The Multiple Listing Service shows more than 250 single-family homes up for sale in the area, with prices ranging from $300,000 up past $3 million.


1259 W. 83rd St., Los Angeles, 90044 (Sean Sullivan)

The house: Spanish in style, this 1930s spot boasts clay tile and arched entryways on the outside and beamed ceilings inside. Floors of tile and hardwood alternate in the living spaces, which lead to a small fenced yard out back.

The address: 1259 W. 83rd St., Los Angeles, 90044

The price: $699,000

The specs: Three bedrooms and two bathrooms in 1,357 square feet

The agent: Sean Sullivan of Pinnacle Estate Properties


Chatsworth

If space is what you seek, the San Fernando Valley has plenty. Chatsworth is a pleasant valley suburb tucked just south of the Santa Susana Mountains with parks, trails and a handful of homes for under $1 million.


23228 Alta Way, Chatsworth, 91311 (Julliann Woods)

The house: The largest home on the list, at nearly 1,600 square feet, this traditional-style house takes advantage with three bedrooms, three bathrooms, a galley-style kitchen and living room with a brick fireplace. Multiple balconies hang off the house, overlooking an outdoor space with a scenic deck, fire pit and hot tub.

The address: 23228 Alta Way, Chatsworth, 91311

The price: $684,500

The specs: Three bedrooms and three bathrooms in 1,598 square feet

The agent: Julliann Woods of Pinnacle Estate Properties


Link: https://www.latimes.com/business/sto...la-communities

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ That's interesting

I guess chasing away the middle class (which Chicago did with a 'don't let the door hit you on the way out!' attitude as usual) didn't work out as well for Chicago as it did with coastal cities.

Seriously, I would love if the data you posted could be shared with some of Chicago's more douchy Aldermen who are convinced beyond reason that gentrification is the evil 'G' word and is the biggest challenge facing Chicago...

Chicago didn't chase away the middle class, globalization drove away the vast majority of what were previously middle class jobs. Now middle class jobs have significantly higher barriers of entry (education) and are less accessible to people without those credentials.

1980 is probably the absolute latest you could still argue Chicago had a strong base of manufacturing jobs and would be why it was more expensive than average. They were drying up beginning in the 1970s. By 1990, the city's manufacturing base was likely less than half what it was in 1980, which was probably half what it was in 1970.

The city had significant amounts of land area that were only desirable because they were close to work. They didn't have the preferred housing stock (SFH w/ large yard) or the new mall (most of which are gone by this point). Much of it was blighted or adjacent to blighted areas. Had the city not been redlined to death, it's probable that there'd be more stable, middle class black neighborhoods where there are now brownfields. We'll never know.

Chicago isn't expensive today because it has the foundations of a previously HCOL area, which is lots of multifamily housing AND a lot of future development potential. It's the same story as Philadelphia. NYC is no stranger to this either...it's only within the millennials' lifetime that NYC was able to flip the script.

Also it's no secret that people love to bash the Midwest, which keeps a lot of people that would lead very fulfilling lives here from even considering it. You never hear people visit Chicago and say it was hyped. It's always that they're blown away.

[Centropolis]

chicago, and much of midwest still feel like primarily middle class places compared to other regions. chicago in particular still has an old school working and blue collar middle class pride that is unmatched in the u.s. in my opinion. i’ve always been struck by the level of just actual physical maintenance of homes and yards in parts of chicago that are written off.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

chicago, and much of midwest still feel like primarily middle class places compared to other regions. chicago in particular still has an old school working and blue collar middle class pride that is unmatched in the u.s. in my opinion. i’ve always been struck by the level of just actual physical maintenance of homes and yards in parts of chicago that are written off.

Yeah, compared to Boston and SF, Chicago is extremely middle class. Residency requirements for city jobs help too.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Residency requirements for city jobs help too.

yeah, when you add up all the teachers, and cops, and firemen, and streets and san workers, and park district employees, and city clerical workers, and, and, and, etc. you start painting a picture of tens of thousands of middle class workers who are legally required to reside within the 227 sq. miles of the city of chicago.

it has an immensely stabilizing impact on many bungalow belt hoods.

not even covid WFH BS can get you outta that requirement.

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

Chicago didn't chase away the middle class, globalization drove away the vast majority of what were previously middle class jobs. Now middle class jobs have significantly higher barriers of entry (education) and are less accessible to people without those credentials.

yeah, not that chicago was alone in radical deindustrialization over the past 50 years, but these numbers below do play a large role in the decimation of the city's former blue collar middle class army.

chicago didn't kick its blue collar workforce out, their jobs simply evaporated by the hundreds of thousands due to automation and tectonic shifts in the global industrial economy that no US city could have stopped.

Originally Posted by TR Devlin

There are currently about 1.2 million jobs in Chicago.  

Although this is about the same as in the mid-1970s, there’s been a huge change in the types of jobs and where they are.  

This is shown in the following tables:



All city jobs

		Mfg		Services	Other		Total

1972		435,000		277,000		598,000		1,310,000

2010		65,000		583,000		363,000		1,011,000

2019		64,000		729,000		411,000		1,214,000

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yeah, when you add up all the teachers, and cops, and firemen, and streets and san workers, and park district employees, and city clerical workers, and, and, and, etc. you start painting a picture of tens of thousands of middle class workers who are legally required to reside within the 227 sq. miles of the city of chicago.

it has an immensely stabilizing impact on many bungalow belt hoods.

not even covid WFH BS can get you outta that requirement.

Michigan passed a law in 1999 that invalidated Detroit's residency requirement for municipal workers. It doesn't get a lot of attention, but that obviously played a part in the massive population drop that the city experienced from 2000-2010.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Michigan passed a law in 1999 that invalidated Detroit's residency requirement for municipal workers. It doesn't get a lot of attention, but that obviously played a part in the massive population drop that the city experienced from 2000-2010.

i didn't know about that, but yeah, i have to believe that change figured into the equation significantly.

here in chicago, you see city workers like cops and firemen pile into bungalow belts hoods like norwood park and mt. greenwood on the far NW and SW sides at the very extreme edges of the city limits.

it's almost like they have no desire to live in the city, but because of the residency law, they begrugdingly do so on the absolute fringes to keep collecting those city paychecks.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i didn't know about that, but yeah, i have to believe that change figured into the equation significantly.

here in chicago, you see city workers like cops and firemen pile into bungalow belts hoods like norwood park and mt. greenwood on the far NW and SW sides at the very extreme edges of the city limits.

it's almost like they have no desire to live in the city, but because of the residency law, they begrugdingly do so on the absolute fringes to keep collecting those city paychecks.

i hope illinois doesn't follow in michigan's footsteps on this one.

Yeah, Detroit was caught in the conundrum of paying people who were simultaneously depriving the city of revenue it depended on. The city of Detroit was the largest employer in Detroit at the time. And it was a policy pushed on the city mostly by politicians who didn't live in the city or represent it.

[dimondpark]

This house sold for $510,000 just 8 months ago and is now back on the market for $829,000. A rather small lot in a high crime neighborhood at that. This is the affect investment buyers are having on the market.
https://www.estately.com/listings/info/1749-24th-ave--2

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i didn't know about that, but yeah, i have to believe that change figured into the equation significantly.

here in chicago, you see city workers like cops and firemen pile into bungalow belts hoods like norwood park and mt. greenwood on the far NW and SW sides at the very extreme edges of the city limits.

it's almost like they have no desire to live in the city, but because of the residency law, they begrugdingly do so on the absolute fringes to keep collecting those city paychecks.

i hope illinois doesn't follow in michigan's footsteps on this one.

i am totally for that and hope they keep it that way. you work there you should live there. i think the rule here in nyc is you have to be a resident initally, like for a year or so, then you can reside in the ring suburbs. i guess thats a compromise, and relief valve on housing costs, so.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

This house sold for $510,000 just 8 months ago and is now back on the market for $829,000. A rather small lot in a high crime neighborhood at that. This is the affect investment buyers are having on the market.
https://www.estately.com/listings/info/1749-24th-ave--2

It's nicely done but still has 'flipper' all over it with the safe colors, modern touches and brand new appliances.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JManc

It's nicely done but still has 'flipper' all over it with the safe colors, modern touches and brand new appliances.

i loathe those orange horizontal board "flipper fences".

always a dead give-away.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by JManc

It's nicely done but still has 'flipper' all over it with the safe colors, modern touches and brand new appliances.

Ive never been a fan of 'great rooms'/open floor plans with the kitchen like in the living room--I've always preferred a separate living room, separate dining room and separate kitchen. I guess I'm old fashioned that way.

[sopas ej]

From the Los Angeles Times:

Southern California home prices jump 20% in April, knocking down another record


April home sales jumped 86.2% year over year with a total of 25,857 transactions, up from 13,889 in April 2020. (David McNew / Getty Images)

By JACK FLEMMING | STAFF WRITER
MAY 25, 2021 5 AM PT

Southern California home prices muscled to an all-time high in April as the hot real estate market got even hotter.

The six-county region’s median home price increased 20.2% year over year to a record $655,000, according to data released Tuesday by real estate firm DQNews. That’s $25,000 more than the previous median price record set in March.

The 20.2% leap is the first year-over-year increase of more than 20% since December 2013, said Becky Beavers of DQNews.

April home sales jumped 86.2% year over year with a total of 25,857 transactions, compared with 13,889 in April 2020. It’s both a reflection of the pandemic-fueled housing boom and of a market that was chilled by the coronavirus last spring as sales died in escrow and would-be sellers decided not to move.

It’s the ninth straight month of double-digit price increases, and experts credit a mix of factors including ultra-low mortgage rates, increasing demand for space and an emerging home-buying demographic: millennials.

Another contributor is the housing shortage.

There’s a glut of potential buyers but a shortage of sellers, and it’s leading to bidding wars that drive offers far above the original price tag. In March, more than half of homes in Los Angeles fetched more than the seller was asking, according to the Multiple Listing Service.

“It’s ironic,” said Compass agent Bret Parsons. “The person who determines the price of a home in this market is the buyer, not the seller. If you price a home accordingly, it will receive multiple offers automatically.”

Both sales and prices rose in all six counties in Southern California.

-In Los Angeles County, the median price rose 19% to $750,000 in April, while sales climbed 101%;

-In Orange County, the median price rose 15.6% that month to $872,500, while sales climbed 97.9%;

-In Riverside County, the median price rose 19.7% to $489,750, while sales climbed 80.8%;

-In San Bernardino County, the median price rose 23.7% to $436,500, while sales climbed 66.9%;

-In San Diego County, the median price rose 17.8% to $700,000, while sales climbed 74.1%;

-In Ventura County, the median price rose 18.5% to $705,000, while sales climbed 82.4%.

“I’ve never seen so many qualified buyers struggle to buy a property,” said RE/Max One agent Jordan Cohen, adding that this is the most competitive market he has seen in 31 years of residential real estate.

This year, he has been regularly submitting offers over the asking price for his clients — some all-cash — and still losing out on homes.

Cohen said he’s not surprised the market surged in April because the March-May stretch is historically one of the busiest times for home buyers as families look to move into new school districts before the summer.

Link: https://www.latimes.com/business/sto...ord-home-price