March 2021: California Median Home Price Soars to All-time High of $758,990

[SIGSEGV]

there is no way such housing prices can be sustainable. Wonder who will end up holding the bag...

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Camelback

If you're not returning, where is it that you would want to return to? Also, what part of The Bay were you in? What is the desired square footage, bedrooms, bathrooms, amenities (double vanities, pool, walk in closet(s) wet bar, granny suite?

Sorry if it's intrusive, that's the sales person of me getting involved and the Bay Area has always been a curiosity of mine.

My husband and I rented an apartment in the Mission District, and neighboring 2BR condos were going for $2.1-2.3M pre-pandemic. Even the city's median home price is out of our range. We are currently riding out the pandemic in a family vacation home in Shasta County, but it's getting time to set ourselves up for the world to reopen and the two finalists for our next move are Sacramento and Los Angeles. Yeah, they're not cheap--but they're much cheaper than the Bay, and they meet our minimal requirements. We are already familiar with both of those cities.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

there is no way such housing prices can be sustainable. Wonder who will end up holding the bag...

Yeah, bubble for sure. There's no way that rational people are paying $1M to buy a house aerated by a mixture of truck and jet fumes 24 hours a day.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

there is no way such housing prices can be sustainable. Wonder who will end up holding the bag...

I don't see it changing anytime soon though. As long as there is a finite supply of housing in the Bay Area and enough people with the means to buy-in, the costs will remain inflated. The only black swan would be a major disrupter in the tech sector which would have to be be pretty substantial.

[Crawford]

My wife, who's allergic to winter weather, sometimes talks about moving to CA. I think she'd be thrilled with this home in the Oakland Hills:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/7...24818860_zpid/

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by JManc

I don't see it changing anytime soon though. As long as there is a finite supply of housing in the Bay Area and enough people with the means to buy-in, the costs will remain inflated. The only black swan would be a major disrupter in the tech sector which would have to be be pretty substantial.

Everything crashes eventually and that will include the tech sector one day. Growth is not infinite. We could still be talking decades down the road though.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

My wife, who's allergic to winter weather, sometimes talks about moving to CA. I think she'd be thrilled with this home in the Oakland Hills:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/7...24818860_zpid/

I'm sure the Clampetts are willing to negotiate.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Crawford

My wife, who's allergic to winter weather, sometimes talks about moving to CA. I think she'd be thrilled with this home in the Oakland Hills:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/7...24818860_zpid/

HAHA "rustic charm"...that's 3 miles up the hill from my house in Piedmont.

Youre buying the .29 acre that shack is located on. It's on a very steep hillside and that area is totally covered in pine trees and eucalyuptus and redwoods, and I hate houses on stilts, which all those homes up there are, and at night it feels like Friday the 13th it's so dark and woodsy, BUT up there...you also get this:

my pic

[Camelback]

Originally Posted by Crawford

My wife, who's allergic to winter weather, sometimes talks about moving to CA. I think she'd be thrilled with this home in the Oakland Hills:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/7...24818860_zpid/

Haha, just "cosmetic"...

Actually the land/lot looks decent. Negotiate it down to 500k, then tear down the existing log cabin, build a custom home for $1mm. You're all in for $1.5 million. The first house I looked at 1 block away has a Zestimate of $2.62 million.
https://goo.gl/maps/3mZdzhZXLHRJ2MM16

[IMBY]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I can’t fathom that people actually pay those prices for a house like that.

Living in Pittsburgh and part time in Miami, where I bought when it was still cheap, I have no real comprehension of how those types of prices are the norm.

You haven't met Nimby's until you've met them in Califor-Nimby-a! And there's that CA Coastal commission that won't allow high rises along the CA coastline! Does the picture become clearer to you?

[dimondpark]

I dont need to create another thread for this but these are findings of a look i took at how prices have changed up and down California in the last 10 years.

The past decade has been a very, very busy one for home prices in this state. This is data from the California Association of Realtors(car.org).

Here are 2 highlights I noticed:

1. Monterey County had the fastest rising median home price over the past decade, climbing a mindboggling 265%, followed by Contra Costa at 237%, and San Bernardino at 216%.

Monterey and Contra Costa both went from the 200,000s to just shy of $1 million.

2. 2 CA Counties increased their median home price by over $1 million, San Mateo and Santa Clara.


Here is the data:

County Median......March 2011..March 2021...10-Year Change
Marin...................$826,700....$1,627,500...+96.9%......+$800,800
San Francisco......$764,535....$1,755,000..+129.7%.....+$990,465
San Mateo...........$666,950....$1,985,000..+198.0%...+$1,318,050
Santa Clara..........$550,250....$1,600,000..+190.9%...+$1,049,750
Orange.................$523,610....$1,025,000...+95.9%.......+$501,390
Santa Cruz...........$465,000....$1,100,000...+136.5%.....+$634,900
Ventura................$443,920.......$770,750....+73.8%.....+$326,830
Santa Barbara......$436,360.....$1,075,000..+146.5%....+$638,640
Alameda...............$420,420....$1,163,000..+176.9%.....+$742,580
San Diego.............$383,620.......$800,000..+108.8%.....+$416,380
San Luis Obispo....$362,700.......$737,500..+103.5%.....+$374,800
Napa.....................$332,610.......$929,000..+179.8%.....+$596,890
Sonoma................$325,910.......$765,000..+135.3%.....+$439,390
Los Angeles..........$282,170.......$668,220..+136.8%.....+$396,050
El Dorado..............$278,333.......$652,500..+134.5%.....+$374,367
Contra Costa........$273,350.......$920,000..+237.0%.....+$646,650
Monterey..............$255,900.......$931,000..+265.1%.....+$675,100
Placer....................$254,268......$610,000..+149.1%.....+$355,732
Humboldt..............$250,000......$359,000....+43.6%.....+$109,000
San Benito............$247,500.......$765,000..+209.7%.....+$517,500
Yolo.......................$221,153......$530,000..+139.8%.....+$308,847
Nevada.................$211,363.......$530,000..+151.1%....+$308,637
Riverside...............$201,520.......$535,000..+166.1%....+$303,480
Solano...................$193,480.......$549,000..+184.4%....+$355,520
Sacramento..........$167,457.......$485,000..+190.4%....+$317,543
San Joaquin..........$155,698......$457,750...+193.9%....+$302,052
Fresno...................$138,120......$350,000...+153.4%....+$211,880
Stanislaus.............$135,483.......$407,500...+200.7%...+$272,017
Madera.................$133,350.......$365,000...+173.7%...+$231,650
San Bernardino.....$130,690.......$412,000...+216.9%...+$281,310
Kern......................$127,500.......$310,000...+146.5%...+$182,500
Merced.................$115,290........$318,000...+175.2%..+$202,710

CALIFORNIA........$304,770........$758,990...+149.0%...+$454,220

Source: California Association of Realtors

Let this serve as a cautionary tale for other states. KEEP. BUILDING. PLEASE.

[streetscaper]

And the trend for the US as a whole (over 100% increase since 2011):


bloombergopinion

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by streetscaper

And the trend for the US as a whole (over 100% increase since 2011):


bloombergopinion

The difference is the prices themselves. Approximately 9 million Californians now live in counties where the median home price is over $1 million, and another 1.8 million Californians are about to join them in this very difficult club.

I really would like to see the federal govt insert iself into housing development by building mass housing and then putting tentants who qualify on a path to ownership---not sure of the details tho.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I can’t fathom that people actually pay those prices for a house like that.

Living in Pittsburgh and part time in Miami, where I bought when it was still cheap, I have no real comprehension of how those types of prices are the norm.

People likely aren't paying those prices for a house like that. It's an estimate, after all. But that's the problem.

There's just not enough housing to match the demand, so prices are going up because there's something like 3.8 million single-family homes needed to match the overall demand.

So, these people living in this house are sitting on a goldmine but one they can't really do anything with because, as a few people in this thread have said, who the hell would spend that money on that house?

Just because the value is ridiculously high doesn't mean someone is going to buy it and these people, beyond moving out of state, can't just sell their home thinking it'll net them likely triple, if not more, than their current mortgage, because the demand for THAT house (as opposed to just any house in the area) is probably not there. So, they could probably sell it for less than it's worth (maybe a quick sale), still probably make back what their mortgage is, but potentially not enough to actually find a house to move into (especially if the prices are legitimately equal).

And that is partially the cause for such high prices. Unless you're in an area of the country where you can feasibly find cheaper homes outside your city, but staying in the metro, or the region at least, the incentive to sell just isn't there.

Since nowhere in California is cheap anymore, people who own these properties aren't going to be able to find a buyer willing to spend close to $1 million on their house. They might be able to sell it for $600,000 in a quick sale, maybe $700,000, but if you still owe, say, $300,000 on your mortgage, that leaves you $400,000 left as a potential down payment on a new house.

So, now they have to find a house they can afford, especially if they want to remain in the Bay Area, and the options are pretty much non-existent.

The only option would be to downsize considerably, and maybe the owner there WOULD want to do that. But even then, you're still looking at putting up a bulk of your equity into a condo that's likely just one bedroom.

What's the point at that point? You're not likely to sell. It's just not worth the hassle unless you are dead-set on really downsizing and can find a buyer for a quick sale or hope to find someone that will buy your house for a value that makes moving affordable.

And that keeps most people in their homes. Which means fewer homes on the market ... which means those homes on the market are now ridiculously expensive.

I live in Salt Lake. We're experiencing a very similar surge in prices. I owe about $220,000 on my house. Right now, if I were to get an estimate on it, it'd probably come in at over $500,000. The house across the street from me just sold for $800,000 - or nearly $100,000 over the asking price. But the house across the street was also likely bought on a quick sale (the old lady who lived there died and I think her family sold it) and the person who bought it renovated the fuck out of it so the interior is actually really nice and it's a sizable house, so, it's definitely worth the price in the market right now. They then sold it for that $800,000.

My house? I replaced the roof a few years ago. I have a new furnace. Finally got rid of the swamp cooler and added central air and then replaced the water heater, so, there's definitely some improvement. But the house is still old. It still has old problems (the pipes suck, the bathroom needs to be remodeled and the basement, while finished, has no floor (well concrete) and the basic barebones renovation after a massive flood in there a few years ago). So, I know I am not getting $800,000 for this house. I could see myself doing a quick sale and getting $500,000 - maybe. The estimate, just based on the location, would put it up there but the actual quick sale probably wouldn't. Maybe I'd be able to get more on the open market, as it's still a nice house, but regardless, let's say I get $500,000. I can probably STILL buy a house in the suburbs, that's newer and bigger, with the equity after my mortgage is paid off, and not see a significant change in my overall monthly mortgage payment.

i think I could, at least. But that would require this house to go for at least $500,000 and I am skeptical it would. And plus I'm lazy and don't want to move and really, the options right now are just not good. The homes are not worth the move from my neighborhood in the city.

But that kind of feeds the problem.

The only way this corrects itself is if more homes hit the market. The only way more homes will hit the market is if people can afford to sell their homes and move. In California, and maybe even Utah in a couple years, that's not possible unless you're willing to relocate out of state. And for a lot of people, that isn't an option, even with everything being remote now.

So, dimondpark is right - what would help is the federal government doing what they did after World War II and mass-produce homes.

The only drawback to that is, as we saw in the 1950s, it led to white flight. And I suspect we'd see it happen again.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

The difference is the prices themselves. Approximately 9 million Californians now live in counties where the median home price is over $1 million, and another 1.8 million Californians are about to join them in this very difficult club.

I really would like to see the federal govt insert iself into housing development by building mass housing and then putting tentants who qualify on a path to ownership---not sure of the details tho.

You think they are going to allow that in Piedmont where you live? I don't think so (and not in the string of exclusive little towns up and down highway 101 through San Mateo and Marin Counties either--heck, they even managed to block 4-tracking the CAHSR right of way).

For those not familiar with the place:

Piedmont is surrounded on all sides by the city of Oakland . . . . The 2010 United States Census reported that Piedmont had a population of 10,667. The population density was 6,358.5 people per square mile (2,455.0/km2). The racial makeup of Piedmont was 7,917 (74.2%) White, 144 (1.3%) African American, 6 (0.1%) Native American, 1,939 (18.2%) Asian, 13 (0.1%) Pacific Islander, 94 (0.9%) from other races, and 554 (5.2%) from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 421 persons (3.9%) . . . . There were 3,924 housing units with an average household size was 2.81. Piedmont's average housing-unit density is 2,339.1 units per square mile (903.1/km2), of which 3,801 were occupied. Piedmont had 3,358 (88.3%) owner-occupied housing units, and 443 (11.7%) renter-occupied housing units. The homeowner vacancy rate was 0.5%; the rental vacancy rate was 3.7%. 9,393 people (88.1% of the population) lived in owner-occupied housing units and 1,271 people (11.9%) lived in rental housing units . . . . The median income for a household in the city was $134,270, and the median income for a family was $149,857. Males had a median income of $100,000 versus $58,553 for females. The per capita income for the city was $70,539. About 1.0% of families and 2.0% of the population were below the poverty line, including 2.6% of those under age 18 and 1.6% of those aged 65 or over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piedmont,_California

Contrast those demographics with those of Oakland which surrounds it.

[Camelback]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

2. 2 CA Counties increased their median home price by over $1 million, San Mateo and Santa Clara.
[/B]

That is insane! Wow

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

You think they are going to allow that in Piedmont where you live? I don't think so (and not in the string of exclusive little towns up and down highway 101 through San Mateo and Marin Counties either--heck, they even managed to block 4-tracking the CAHSR right of way).

For those not familiar with the place:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piedmont,_California

Contrast those demographics with those of Oakland which surrounds it.

Well, the Oakland neighborhoods that surround Piedmont are also very nice.

But everytime I drive by this housing development in West Oakland, I always wonder why there isnt a sea of buildings this size in the flatlands to house middle and lower income folks who need a place to live without fear of being evicted every day.
https://www.apartments.com/city-towe...nd-ca/y3rrbxv/

There are lots of developments that are required to set aside a certain percentage of units as 'affordable' but we need tens of thousands more units in Oakland alone.

The only solution I think works is the federal government to build and keep on building(and then figure out a way to get a return by letting qualified renters buy their units)---the free market doesnt care if people are housed and we are seeing that unfold before our eyes and that's the prerogative of the free market, but the government has to care imo.

So many facets to this. The homeless is another one. I used to dedicate my mondays to making meals and distributing hygiene kits to the homeless, even took a veterinarian out sometimes to help with their pets, but the need is just so great and beyond my time contraints and limited ability to even make a dent, now I just donate---most of them imo after seeing them in person have mental issues tbh, there are some who are just down on their luck, but most need care well beyond a roof over their heads imo. But that too is another discussion.

But I digress.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Camelback

That is insane! Wow

Well, this is probably the future that awaits much of the country...it's scary imo.

Californians are used to this, we're losing this fight but we're used to it and incomes are fairly decent despite cost of living--what about states where pay sucks and housing prices keep rising and rising and the state offers little to no help. That would suck for the poor and even the middle class.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Comrade

People likely aren't paying those prices for a house like that. It's an estimate, after all. But that's the problem.

There's just not enough housing to match the demand, so prices are going up because there's something like 3.8 million single-family homes needed to match the overall demand.

So, these people living in this house are sitting on a goldmine but one they can't really do anything with because, as a few people in this thread have said, who the hell would spend that money on that house?

Just because the value is ridiculously high doesn't mean someone is going to buy it and these people, beyond moving out of state, can't just sell their home thinking it'll net them likely triple, if not more, than their current mortgage, because the demand for THAT house (as opposed to just any house in the area) is probably not there. So, they could probably sell it for less than it's worth (maybe a quick sale), still probably make back what their mortgage is, but potentially not enough to actually find a house to move into (especially if the prices are legitimately equal).

And that is partially the cause for such high prices. Unless you're in an area of the country where you can feasibly find cheaper homes outside your city, but staying in the metro, or the region at least, the incentive to sell just isn't there.

Since nowhere in California is cheap anymore, people who own these properties aren't going to be able to find a buyer willing to spend close to $1 million on their house. They might be able to sell it for $600,000 in a quick sale, maybe $700,000, but if you still owe, say, $300,000 on your mortgage, that leaves you $400,000 left as a potential down payment on a new house.

So, now they have to find a house they can afford, especially if they want to remain in the Bay Area, and the options are pretty much non-existent.

The only option would be to downsize considerably, and maybe the owner there WOULD want to do that. But even then, you're still looking at putting up a bulk of your equity into a condo that's likely just one bedroom.

What's the point at that point? You're not likely to sell. It's just not worth the hassle unless you are dead-set on really downsizing and can find a buyer for a quick sale or hope to find someone that will buy your house for a value that makes moving affordable.

And that keeps most people in their homes. Which means fewer homes on the market ... which means those homes on the market are now ridiculously expensive.

I live in Salt Lake. We're experiencing a very similar surge in prices. I owe about $220,000 on my house. Right now, if I were to get an estimate on it, it'd probably come in at over $500,000. The house across the street from me just sold for $800,000 - or nearly $100,000 over the asking price. But the house across the street was also likely bought on a quick sale (the old lady who lived there died and I think her family sold it) and the person who bought it renovated the fuck out of it so the interior is actually really nice and it's a sizable house, so, it's definitely worth the price in the market right now. They then sold it for that $800,000.

My house? I replaced the roof a few years ago. I have a new furnace. Finally got rid of the swamp cooler and added central air and then replaced the water heater, so, there's definitely some improvement. But the house is still old. It still has old problems (the pipes suck, the bathroom needs to be remodeled and the basement, while finished, has no floor (well concrete) and the basic barebones renovation after a massive flood in there a few years ago). So, I know I am not getting $800,000 for this house. I could see myself doing a quick sale and getting $500,000 - maybe. The estimate, just based on the location, would put it up there but the actual quick sale probably wouldn't. Maybe I'd be able to get more on the open market, as it's still a nice house, but regardless, let's say I get $500,000. I can probably STILL buy a house in the suburbs, that's newer and bigger, with the equity after my mortgage is paid off, and not see a significant change in my overall monthly mortgage payment.

i think I could, at least. But that would require this house to go for at least $500,000 and I am skeptical it would. And plus I'm lazy and don't want to move and really, the options right now are just not good. The homes are not worth the move from my neighborhood in the city.

But that kind of feeds the problem.

The only way this corrects itself is if more homes hit the market. The only way more homes will hit the market is if people can afford to sell their homes and move. In California, and maybe even Utah in a couple years, that's not possible unless you're willing to relocate out of state. And for a lot of people, that isn't an option, even with everything being remote now.

So, dimondpark is right - what would help is the federal government doing what they did after World War II and mass-produce homes.

The only drawback to that is, as we saw in the 1950s, it led to white flight. And I suspect we'd see it happen again.

Utah price increases have been crazy, I've been casually following the market there over the years and what's happened there in the past 5 years or so has been just jawdropping.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Well, this is probably the future that awaits much of the country...it's scary imo.

Californians are used to this, we're losing this fight but we're used to it and incomes are fairly decent despite cost of living--what about states where pay sucks and housing prices keep rising and rising and the state offers little to no help. That would suck for the poor and even the middle class.

It's been happening for a while in Arizona, but felt like it really got worse during the pandemic.