Real Estate in your city

[sopas ej]

A Victorian home in Pasadena, that sold last September for $3,750,000, now worth $3,856,200 (as of 8.13.2023), according to Zillow

6 bd | 6 ba | 4,975 sqft
627 S Euclid Ave, Pasadena, CA 91106













Link: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/6...ZrpqRZIwN8rKws

The house has an interesting history; there's a Julia Child connection. Although she was born and raised in Pasadena, she did not live in this house...



From Pasadena Now:

138-Year-Old “Langford Residence” May Become Pasadena’s Next Landmark

Published on Saturday, August 12, 2023 | 5:59 am



The current owner of the historical Langford Residence in Pasadena has applied for the property’s designation as a landmark, which would officially recognize the home’s historical and architectural significance.

The Langford Residence, a single-family home located at 627 South Euclid Ave. built in 1886 by a lumber entrepreneur, is one of the few remaining examples of the Queen Anne style in Pasadena, and represents a significant period in the city’s history. Designating it as a landmark would help ensure that the property is protected and celebrated as an architectural gem for generations to come.

Pasadena’s Historic Preservation Commission will deliberate on the application during its meeting on Tuesday, Aug. 15.

A report by the Department of of Planning and Community Development said the property, a three-story-over-basement structure, dates back to around 1886 based on property records. It was originally constructed for Charles E. Langford, the first owner, who hailed from a prominent New York family with ties to a woolen mill.

A seasoned entrepreneur, Langford arrived in Pasadena in 1886 and acquired a substantial 20-acre parcel, including the land on which the house was situated. Langford set up a branch of the Langford & Hall Lumber Co. in Pasadena. He and his second wife, Maria, resided at the property until he died in 1893.

The records showed Calvin Durand acquired ownership of the property in 1909 and sold it to John McWilliams, Sr., in 1912.

McWilliams descended from a political family in Illinois and moved his family to California during the late 1800s. His son, John McWilliams, Jr., was the father of the renowned culinary icon, Julia Carolyn McWilliams, who became famous as author, chef and TV personality Julia Child.

The property remained within the extended McWilliams family’s ownership until 1957, according to the Planning Department’s report.

The report added the property retains much of its original character-defining features and has “sufficient integrity to qualify for designation as a Landmark.”

Tuesday’s public meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission begins at 6 p.m. at the Hearing Room of the George Ellery Hale Building at 175 N. Garfield Ave.

Link: https://www.pasadenanow.com/main/138...NduZ-z2ulBVOiE

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Of course it was a thing, but it was borderline irrelevant.

How was it irrelevant and not a big deal? Whole groups of people were being excluded from buying and living in whole neighborhoods, and were instead being shoehorned into living in areas that were often undesirable for whatever reason. Like I said, the legacy of redlining still exists today; that's why you see "Mexican" neighborhoods, "black" neighborhoods, etc. That's pretty relevant.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

How was it irrelevant and not a big deal? Whole groups of people were being excluded from buying and living in whole neighborhoods, and were instead being shoehorned into living in areas that were often undesirable for whatever reason. Like I said, the legacy of redlining still exists today; that's why you see "Mexican" neighborhoods, "black" neighborhoods, etc. That's pretty relevant.

He also denies that Black (and Latino) folks get their homes valued less for simply being Black even though it's been proven all across the United States that this unfair and racist practice occurs.

This took a 10 second search to find:

Home Appraised With a Black Owner: $472,000. With a White Owner: $750,000.
Nathan Connolly and his wife, Shani Mott, say an appraisal company undervalued their home based on their race. The couple has filed a lawsuit in Maryland.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/18/r...-maryland.html

How racial bias in appraisals affects the devaluation of homes in majority-Black neighborhoods
December 5, 2022
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/h...neighborhoods/

Black couple settles lawsuit claiming their home appraisal was lowballed due to bias
Updated March 9, 20232:21 PM ET
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/09/11621...owners-lawsuit

Black homes are often undervalued. Black appraisers are fighting to change that.
April 6, 2022, 6:03 AM EDT
NBC News
By Curtis Bunn
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna23091

How the home appraisal gap makes homeownership more difficult and costly for Black families
March 23, 2021
https://www.bankrate.com/real-estate...lack-families/

For Black homeowners, a common conundrum with appraisals
By Troy McMullen
January 21, 2021
https://www.washingtonpost.com/reale...6d6_story.html


He's a lost cause that thinks he knows it all because he read all the planning books of the 1980s/1990s in 1990s era college

I graduated university in 2008 and a decent chunk of what I learned is now 15 years out of date. As my Biology professor said in 2005 "Ignorance is not Bliss"

[Wigs]

sopas ej, when my brother lived in Monrovia I fell in love with housing in that charming suburb, Pasadena, the San Gabriel Valley and LA overall. I always appreciate your posts.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

How was it irrelevant and not a big deal? Whole groups of people were being excluded from buying and living in whole neighborhoods, and were instead being shoehorned into living in areas that were often undesirable for whatever reason. Like I said, the legacy of redlining still exists today; that's why you see "Mexican" neighborhoods, "black" neighborhoods, etc. That's pretty relevant.

Different groups of people often segregate themselves whether there is a formal policy or not. Black Americans would still be the poorest demographic in the United States if redlining hadn't happened.

A primary residence IS NOT an investment an IS NOT counted toward one's net worth. Very, very few people have come out way ahead.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Wigs

He's a lost cause that thinks he knows it all because he read all the planning books of the 1980s/1990s in 1990s era college

I graduated university in 2008 and a decent chunk of what I learned is now 15 years out of date. As my Biology professor said in 2005 "Ignorance is not Bliss"

I am voicing an unpopular opinion because I have a working knowledge as to how real estate actually works in the United States, given that I have flipped properties and have been a landlord for about 10 years. I also live in a cheap, uncool part of the country, where there is no housing crisis. Everyone who lives in an expensive area is free to leave that area and move somewhere cheap. There are jobs all over the place - this isn't 2008-09.

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

A primary residence IS NOT an investment an IS NOT counted toward one's net worth. Very, very few people have come out way ahead

The Federal Reserve disagrees and includes primary residence as part of wealth. It is the main source of wealth for middle class folks. This is thanks to lots of policies, not just redlining.

Things like the GI Bill and Jim Crow existed well past the 1950s and had massive impact. This article has an extensive list of the specific policies going back more than two centuries.

[Crawford]

Unless you win the lottery (say bought Silicon Valley RE in 1970) you are highly unlikely to build generational wealth via primary homeownership. This is doubly true for African Americans, due to legacy effects of redlining and de facto segregation. African American households are appraised at much lower values, and African American neighborhoods almost always have lagging values.

It's a sad reality that black households often try to "whitewash" their home prior to home sales/inspections/appraisals, even in more upscale areas. They borrow their (white) neighbor's family pictures, remove any overt ethnic cues, etc.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

I am voicing an unpopular opinion because I have a working knowledge as to how real estate actually works in the United States, given that I have flipped properties and have been a landlord for about 10 years. I also live in a cheap, uncool part of the country, where there is no housing crisis. Everyone who lives in an expensive area is free to leave that area and move somewhere cheap. There are jobs all over the place - this isn't 2008-09.

Aw come on, you are not that special, your opinion is not that unpopular. The onus is on you to explain how redlining wouldn’t matter in accruing wealth…

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Unless you win the lottery (say bought Silicon Valley RE in 1970) you are highly unlikely to build generational wealth via primary homeownership. This is doubly true for African Americans, due to legacy effects of redlining and de facto segregation. African American households are appraised at much lower values, and African American neighborhoods almost always have lagging values.

It's a sad reality that black households often try to "whitewash" their home prior to home sales/inspections/appraisals, even in more upscale areas. They borrow their (white) neighbor's family pictures, remove any overt ethnic cues, etc.

Agreed on the generational wealth piece.

As for the appraisal of African American houses being lower, I don't buy it. Are there instances where it happened? Sure, but at scale or some nationwide problem, I doubt it. There is simply too much data on home prices available to literally everybody. If you want to argue the presence of African American families in a neighborhood statistically can bring down the value of the neighborhood, I would certainly believe that, but I don't think that is what you are saying?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

A primary residence IS NOT an investment an IS NOT counted toward one's net worth.

It may not be a great investment in most cases, but it is often a good forced savings account for people who aren't naturally super savvy/disciplined with their money.

As for net worth, some people include primary residence, some don't. You ARE NOT the final word on that contentious issue.

What is generally much more agreed upon is that primary residence equity should not be used in calculating one's retirement savings.

[suburbanite]

Apart from some select American cities (and pretty much every Canadian one at this point), you're probably not going to realize enough appreciation on your primary residence to say, let it be the vast majority of your retirement fund. That being said having unrestricted access to housing markets that feature long-term stable appreciation unlocks the best financing option for middle-class families, and easy access to credit is a huge factor in building wealth.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

Agreed on the generational wealth piece.

As for the appraisal of African American houses being lower, I don't buy it. Are there instances where it happened? Sure, but at scale or some nationwide problem, I doubt it. There is simply too much data on home prices available to literally everybody.

It definitely happens. Just last week someone (Black male) was telling me that the appraisal of his Brooklyn brownstone was off by about half a million compared to similar houses around him.

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

If you want to argue the presence of African American families in a neighborhood statistically can bring down the value of the neighborhood, I would certainly believe that, but I don't think that is what you are saying?

What's the difference?

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Unless you win the lottery (say bought Silicon Valley RE in 1970) you are highly unlikely to build generational wealth via primary homeownership. This is doubly true for African Americans, due to legacy effects of redlining and de facto segregation. African American households are appraised at much lower values, and African American neighborhoods almost always have lagging values.

It's a sad reality that black households often try to "whitewash" their home prior to home sales/inspections/appraisals, even in more upscale areas. They borrow their (white) neighbor's family pictures, remove any overt ethnic cues, etc.

Not to mention Black Americans are more likely to get rejected for a mortgage even with similar income and credit score to White Americans.

There was a report about it on the local Buffalo NPR station, WBFO months ago. Now a Black "mortgage specialist" works with one of the local banks to assist Black families to be able to get mortgages.

To ignore the history and reality for 42 million or so Black Americans (and other non Whites) is so ignorant. It's sad in 2023 when so much information on these subjects is out there.
People love living in their own bubbles I guess.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Apart from some select American cities (and pretty much every Canadian one at this point), you're probably not going to realize enough appreciation on your primary residence to say, let it be the vast majority of your retirement fund. That being said having unrestricted access to housing markets that feature long-term stable appreciation unlocks the best financing option for middle-class families, and easy access to credit is a huge factor in building wealth.

having a paid off real estate asset later in retirement can be critical as well. It's not going to pay for your retirement vacations in your 60's - but it very well may pay your long-term-care bills in your 90's.

Alternately you can move to a lower cost of living area or downsize and cash out on the real estate to fund a significant portion of your retirement.

For a Canadian example, someone in Hamilton could sell their $1.3 million detached in Ancaster and buy a generally equal-quality detached in Port Dover, a popular retirement community, for $800k. That $500k in equity is then cashed out and can be put in an investment fund and sustainably provide $20,000 a year in retirement income.

That's not going to be enough to live off of, but it'll be a good chunk of supplemental retirement income.

Then when they've had a fruitful, 30 year retirement, and need supportive housing, they can sell that $800k detached and use the proceeds to pay for the $4,000 a month supportive housing bills.

They can also take out HELOCs or remortgage the house to finance retirement, and as mentioned, can sell later in life to fund supportive housing as they age.

Plus access to affordable capital as you already mentioned through life to fund investments and other wealth accumulation.

The benefit of having a paid-off house is also immense in retirement as it significantly reduces the amount of income required to live - no rent or mortgage payments makes life a lot cheaper.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

and includes primary residence as part of wealth. It is the main source of wealth for middle class folks. This is thanks to lots of policies, not just redlining.

Things like the GI Bill and Jim Crow existed well past the 1950s and had massive impact. This article has an extensive list of the specific policies going back more than two centuries.

Ordinary people get wealthy by consistently contributing to tax-advantaged retirement accounts that are mostly invested in the S&P 500. There has never, ever been any law that kept minorities from buying stocks. The U.S. stock market has exploded in value in the 60~ years since the least vestiges of discriminatory practices were illegalized. The value of single-family houses has not.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by montréaliste

Aw come on, you are not that special, your opinion is not that unpopular. The onus is on you to explain how redlining wouldn’t matter in accruing wealth…

Because, by far, wealth has been generated in the United States by stocks, not by ownership of primary residences, and no mechanism has ever prevented minorities from buying U.S. stocks.

A quick google search sez the U.S. stock market has appreciated in value by 21,000% since 1970.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_...50_to_2016.png

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It definitely happens. Just last week someone (Black male) was telling me that the appraisal of his Brooklyn brownstone was off by about half a million compared to similar houses around him.

This is what doesn't make sense to me - why was the house being appraised? If it was an appraisal to purchase the home, the lower the appraisal the better (assuming the LTV doesn't get fucked up, but that's on the buyer, which isn't your example). If it's for a ReFi (who is refinancing now?!) or for a sale, that's what market comps are for, i've bought and sold like 20 properties in my life, and I almost always want the appraisal to come back as low as possible. I can't think of many scenerios where I'd want the house to appraise high, maybe a cash out ReFi but who is doing that in this market?

Originally Posted by iheartthed

What's the difference?

You don't know the difference between a bank illegally tampering with an appraisal due to race and a home buyer not wanting to live in a neighborhood with black families, which could decrease the desirability of the neighborhood, resulting in lower market values?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

You don't know the difference between a bank illegally tampering with an appraisal due to race and a home buyer not wanting to live in a neighborhood with black families, which could decrease the desirability of the neighborhood, resulting in lower market values?

Why would the presence of black families decrease the desirability of the neighborhood?

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

This is what doesn't make sense to me - why was the house being appraised? If it was an appraisal to purchase the home, the lower the appraisal the better (assuming the LTV doesn't get fucked up, but that's on the buyer, which isn't your example). If it's for a ReFi (who is refinancing now?!) or for a sale, that's what market comps are for, i've bought and sold like 20 properties in my life, and I almost always want the appraisal to come back as low as possible. I can't think of many scenerios where I'd want the house to appraise high, maybe a cash out ReFi but who is doing that in this market?



You don't know the difference between a bank illegally tampering with an appraisal due to race and a home buyer not wanting to live in a neighborhood with black families, which could decrease the desirability of the neighborhood, resulting in lower market values?

Your response is a good illustration as to why the Twitter/Reddit-fueled rage toward capitalism/real estate is so difficult to deal with as a person who actually understands the issues. These people just plain don't know what they're talking about and keep repeating the whining of other people on Twitter and Reddit.

I personally had two appraisals come in WAY under the house's assumed value. In example one, we had an off-market deal. I agreed to pay $150,000 for the house but the bank only valued it at $125,000 (we were both shocked - the seller had put on a new roof, got a new patio and alleyway poured, did a new kitchen, and rewired the house, but the bank didn't care). So I did a down payment of $25,000 and a mortgage for $100,000. The seller drew up a contract for me to pay him the difference over a period of four years, which I did.

The second time, I did a cash-out refi of that same house during the 2020 rate drop. By then the house was valued at about $200,000, but the bank only appraised it for $160,000. This limited my cash out to, I think, $22,000 or thereabouts. If the house had been appraised higher, I could have gotten more money out.

I put that cash-out straight into stocks and made another $5,000 or so by the end of 2020. The thing that was crazy about it was that so many people were refinancing in early 2020 that there was about a 7 week delay until the closing. If I had gotten that same cash-out in 2-3 weeks like a normal refi, I would have made A LOT more in the stock market since it started bouncing back rapidly in May and I didn't get the money until July 2 or 3, if I remember correctly. I invested that money conservatively, too. I had some play money in another account that I made $7,000 in one day with. That year was absolutely insane.