The half-mil home
Tom Kirkendall has a great post comparing what kind of home a half-million dollars will buy you in LA vs. The Woodlands, with pictures. He links to this story in LA Times, which has some just stunning data points in that price range: 724 sq. ft? One-bedroom? 80+ year old houses in need of substantial repair?And guess what? $500K is the median home in LA now, vs. $145K in Houston.
The California Assn. of Realtors estimates that today only 13% of L.A. County households can afford a median-priced home.Note that's LA county, not just the city or just the nice parts close to the ocean, but the entire county, which goes substantially inland and has around 10 million people in it. (that number sounds like some exaggerated round number - like "a gillion" - but, no, it's the real number)
So what the heck are the other 87% buying below the median price? Do they make houses smaller than 724 sq.ft. and one bedroom? Isn't that called a "garage"? I know people in Houston with more closet space than that. Or do neighborhoods with armed gangs roaming the streets get you into that nice "affordable" $300-400K range?
Crazy.
posted by Tory Gattis @ 8:28 PM
13 Comments:
Well, you also get to live in one of the most dynamic cities in North America. And that is a draw. I'm not disagreeing with Tom's point - hey, I left my 670 square foot house in DC (selling price not far below half a million) for Houston in part for this reason.
But the housing prices do speak to how desirable cities like LA (or SF or DC or NY or Boston) are to many people.
Remember also that there's a time effect. If you bought your house in LA 20 years ago, you might be trading up to one of those overprices houses without actually having a huge mortgage, because you're using the equity in your old house to pay for it. It's newcomers to the housing markets in those places that really suffer.
"Well, you also get to live in one of the most dynamic cities in North America. And that is a draw. ...But the housing prices do speak to how desirable cities like LA (or SF or DC or NY or Boston) are to many people.
If you bought your house in LA 20 years ago, you might be trading up to one of those overprices houses without actually having a huge mortgage, because you're using the equity in your old house to pay for it. It's newcomers to the housing markets in those places that really suffer."
You've got to wonder how long a city can remain a draw despite making "newcomers suffer"
It's also reflective of the cultural differences between LA and Houston when paying a premium for an "80+ year old house" is seen as a *bad* thing.
You don't even have to go to the Woodlands. A quick search on Realtor.com and I found 12 houses in Montrose for $500,000-$525,000, all of which looked in good shape (a mix of new construction and 1920s renovations) and 2,500-3,500 square feet.
mococoa,
I would disagree that Portland, Vancouver, or Austin aren't well respected as cities to live in nationwide. And housing prices and recent %-growth would support that argument.
Houston definitely has a reputation for being a sprawling plain devoid of entertainment, even though that characterization is not fair to our fine arts community, sporting venues, and downtown/medical center areas. But, there is also nothing to "see" in Houston. If you're in LA, you can easily run out of time to see all the sights. Same with SF, NY, Boston, DC, etc. Austin has a lot of natural beauty. Same with Portland and Vancouver.
While the decision to build Houston inland after the great Galveston hurricane was a wise one, it has left Houston topographically and environmentally boring.
Oh yeah, always being ranked among the worst cities for smog and traffic doesn't help the perception of our city either (though LA has enough sights and sounds to somehow make people forget that they are just as bad as we are)
I am going to have to agree with Michael on the culture bafflement. If there are any "cultural sophisticates" out there that can comment, I'd like to hear it. I'm certainly not in that category, but I've got to imagine the percent of the population that would be bored by Houston's full cultural scene but excited by LA or Chicago's has got to be incredibly small - less than 1% of the population. NY might be an exception if you live for Broadway, author readings, art exhibits, etc. - but if you're kind of a normal to above average college educated person that goes to these maybe a handful of times/month, Houston should have you covered.
Am I missing something? We used to have a home in Riverside, CA and the insurance was about $400 per year. We sold that home and bought 2 in North Houston. The insurance here is about $1k. The property taxes are extremely high too. Is this why there are so many foreclosures here? Don't get me wrong I really do like Houston. But after seeing all your money go in taxes and insurance instead of equity is tough!
According to the data here:
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/
lists/taxesbycity2005/index.html
our property taxes are substantially below California (or at least LA).
There's also the issue of considering the overall tax burden vs. just the property tax. Texas has no income tax.
If you dont think LA has better culture than Houston, you need to take off your Houston-colored glasses.
Aside from the beautiful year round weather and top-rate public universities on par with most private schools, you have arguably the 2nd best museum in the nation, the largest entertainment sector in the US, Disneyland, famous restaurants that actors shop at, stores that don't exist anywhere else. LA is a great place to visit.
My relatives have no trouble at all keeping us entertained when we go to LA, unfortunately, the few times my relatives do come here, what exactly do I show them? The waterwall near the (former) Transco? The closing-down Astroworld? And once you've done NASA once...
LA has a lot more to do than Houston, and you pay for it with an extremely high cost of living.
And of course, LA has nothing on SF, my 2nd favorite city in the US after NYC.
I too think tourism and culture are different things. And culture certainly does not equal weather. I will admit Houston is not a top weather or tourism city, but I think our cultural attractions can hold their own: museums, theater, music, art, symphony, ballet, restaurants, shopping, etc.
There may be a layer of shoppers above the Galleria-level that can only be happy on Rodeo Drive or 5th Avenue, but that's pretty rare air - and they spend a half-mil on just the garage for their house.
My own very limited impression of LA was that the culture is very superficial - all about beauty and celebrities, like E! television transformed into a city.
As long as LA keeps creating high quality jobs and as long as it keeps having good weather, people will move there. I'm kind of surprised by the defensiveness. Houston is a great city in its own right, and we don't need to disparage LA's many fine assets just to make ourselves feel better.
And yes, most people are working stiffs, so when they get off of work, they want something to do. And having beautiful weather to go to the parks or museums or one of the many entertainment venues in LA make it a great place to live. Even with all the smog and high cost of living, everything else about LA seems to drown those negatives out. Unfortunately, when people think of Houston, smog, pollution, and sprawl is all people think about even though we have so much more to offer than that.
Well, the reason Houston is not a tourist haven is the same reason we won't get an Olympics or get another Super Bowl here-- there's nothing to do here that is unique. There's a lot to do here if you're a Houstonian, but if we're not talking Rodeo season, there really is nothing for people visiting to see here. This is completely unlike California or Florida.
Just an observation, but Atlanta got the Olympics without being a tourist city. I still don't think we'll get it because of our weather, but it is possible for non-tourist cities to get it.
Post a Comment
<< Home