Why did Downtown LA begin to revitalize so much later than other major US cities?

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Nobody said other cities don't have suburbs (lol). But the scale, importance, attractiveness and vitality of secondary nodes in LA is quite unique. This isn't even arguable. I'm not sure why you're having such a difficult time understanding it.

I don't either. Its understood by most people in real life as well.
The fact he wanted to compare the bay area beach towns to orange county says enough.
It's like saying a city has a casino , so what's special about vegas? That's how it comes across anyway.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that's a part of the story, but there is absolutely a preference for SFH in general in american society.

that's why, apples to apples, they are always more expensive (they are are more desired).

my neighborhood is roughly 85% multifamily/15% SFH, and the SFH have a huge price premium on them.

we live in a large 3 bed/3 bath two-floor condo unit in a standard chicago 3-flat. if you lopped off the two units on the upper floors of our building and turned our unit into a SFH, it would automatically increase about 50% in value.

Isn't your area predominantly multi-family, though? I would expect SFH to be more expensive in an area dominated by multi-family housing due to the uniqueness of it.

On the other hand, metros with large amounts of MFH are more expensive than regions dominated by SFH

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by edale

Anyway, this is a fucking stupid conversation. Every city has desirable neighborhoods outside of its core. OMG but LA has Fairfax, and WeHo, and Beverly Hills, and Silver Lake, and blah blah blah. Ok, a city of 4 million people fucking better have numerous cool neighborhoods. What kind of point is that?

The three most expensive real estate deals in the last 12 months in the US were all nine figure sales in the Westside of LA, far away from downtown. This would never be the case in any other city. In NYC it would be in Manhattan. In the SF bay it would be in SF proper.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by badrunner

The three most expensive real estate deals in the last 12 months in the US were all nine figure sales in the Westside of LA, far away from downtown. This would never be the case in any other city. In NYC it would be in Manhattan. In the SF bay it would be in SF proper.

I don't think that's true. In the Bay Area, it would probably at least as likely to be in Silicon Valley, probably Atherton. In the NYC area, it could be Greenwich or the Hamptons. In DC it would probably be wealthy suburbs like McLean or Potomac. In South Florida it would almost certainly be Miami Beach or Palm Beach. Plenty of other metros have pockets of extreme desirability.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Isn't your area predominantly multi-family, though? I would expect SFH to be more expensive in an area dominated by multi-family housing due to the uniqueness of it.

On the other hand, metros with large amounts of MFH are more expensive than regions dominated by SFH

I don't know about that. Toronto has tons of multifamily yet SFH are much more expensive. Detroit has barely any multifamily yet SFH are much more expensive. Hong Kong is almost entirely multifamily yet SFH are much more expensive.

That suggests that people (very generally speaking, and not just in U.S.) prefer multifamily.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't think that's true. In the Bay Area, it would probably at least as likely to be in Silicon Valley, probably Atherton. In the NYC area, it could be Greenwich or the Hamptons. In DC it would probably be wealthy suburbs like McLean or Potomac. In South Florida it would almost certainly be Miami Beach or Palm Beach. Plenty of other metros have pockets of extreme desirability.

Thank you!

And for a SoCal context, I'm pretty sure La Jolla and some of the North County San Diego beach communities would also be more expensive than Downtown San Diego.

Indian Hill (suburban area with huge lots and estates) is the most expensive real estate in Cincinnati. Bloomfield Hills is for Detroit. Lake Forest and the northern lakeside burbs would probably be among the most expensive real estate listings in Chicago. It's not really uncommon at all.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't think that's true. In the Bay Area, it would probably at least as likely to be in Silicon Valley, probably Atherton. In the NYC area, it could be Greenwich or the Hamptons. In DC it would probably be wealthy suburbs like McLean or Potomac. In South Florida it would almost certainly be Miami Beach or Palm Beach. Plenty of other metros have pockets of extreme desirability.

Not all of them would make the list though. It's a list dominated by LA, SF and NYC which is why those are the cities I mentioned.

And yeah, it could be in those other desirable suburbs within the metro, but in SF and NYC the core is overwhelmingly the favorite for the wealthy. And the bigger point is (with respect to this thread) in LA, those sales could never be within DTLA.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by edale

Indian Hill (suburban area with huge lots and estates) is the most expensive real estate in Cincinnati. Bloomfield Hills is for Detroit. Lake Forest and the northern lakeside burbs would probably be among the most expensive real estate listings in Chicago. It's not really uncommon at all.

Actually the LA real estate market is extremely unusual. The top 100 most expensive sales in LA would probably be outside the core. That wouldn't happen in any other city. Certainly not in any other high end real estate cities like SF and NYC.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Not all of them would make the list though. It's a list dominated by LA, SF and NYC which is why those are the cities I mentioned.

And yeah, it could be in those other desirable suburbs within the metro, but in SF and NYC the core is overwhelmingly the favorite for the wealthy. And the bigger point is (with respect to this thread) in LA, those sales could never be within DTLA.

I think in NYC, yeah, probably. There would be some in the Hamptons and Greenwich, and maybe Alpine, but if you take, say, the 20 most expensive annual sales, the strong majority will be in the core. But not all. And NYC is really an outlier.

But I don't think it's true in the Bay Area, or other U.S. metros. Does anyone know how to access top Bay Area sales? I'm betting Atherton and the like dominate the top.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't know about that. Toronto has tons of multifamily yet SFH are much more expensive. Detroit has barely any multifamily yet SFH are much more expensive. Hong Kong is almost entirely multifamily yet SFH are much more expensive.

That suggests that people (very generally speaking, and not just in U.S.) prefer multifamily.

In the city of Detroit, the most expensive units now are in multi-tenant buildings. The most expensive home in the entire city is in the Book-Cadillac hotel.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

In the city of Detroit, the most expensive units now are in multi-tenant buildings. The most expensive home in the entire city is in the Book-Cadillac hotel.

Do you have a link to this? I find this extremely implausible.

I bet you the 50 most expensive Metro Detroit sales are SFH, and probably 90% in the Bloomfield-Birmingham area.

And if we're talking the city proper of Detroit, I doubt there has ever been a million dollar multifamily sale. There probably have only been a handful of 500k sales, ever.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Isn't your area predominantly multi-family, though?

yeah, as i said in my post, it's roughly 85% MFH/15% SFH.

but i don't see how that affects anything. in my neighborhood if you have a 2,000 SF condo in a flat building next door to a 2,000 SF SFH bungalow that are similarly appointed, the bungalow is going to be ~50% more expensive because people are willing to pay for SFH.

generally speaking, SFH is more highly prized than MFH in american society (apples to apples).

Originally Posted by edale

Lake Forest and the northern lakeside burbs would probably be among the most expensive real estate listings in Chicago.

the north shore burbs do indeed have pricey real estate, but it's not the leader in chicagoland, that honor goes to downtown chicago.

current $5M+ listings in chicagoland:

the city -
28 - downtown
6 - lincoln park

the burbs-
21 - north shore (old money)
3 - barrington (horse country)
3 - hinsdale/burr ridge (new money)

[Crawford]

IMO listings aren't particularly useful. Anyone can list for any amount, anywhere. Some dude in LA is listing a home for $1 billion, obviously for publicity.

Closed sales show relative desirability.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

IMO listings aren't particularly useful. Anyone can list for any amount, anywhere.

of course, but it still provides a pretty good general picture of where the most expensive residential real estate is in a given metro area.

i did like a 2 minute google search. if you want to dig further into closed sales in chicagoland, go for it, but i don't think you'll find a radically different result.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Do you have a link to this? I find this extremely implausible.

I bet you the 50 most expensive Metro Detroit sales are SFH, and probably 90% in the Bloomfield-Birmingham area.

And if we're talking the city proper of Detroit, I doubt there has ever been a million dollar multifamily sale. There probably have only been a handful of 500k sales, ever.

I was talking about city of Detroit only. There have been a few million dollar units sold in multi-family buildings:

https://detroit.curbed.com/maps/most...roit-sold-2018

I was wrong about the B-C, though. The penthouse is the most expensive home for sale in Detroit, and one of the most expensive in Michigan, but it has not yet sold.

[pj3000]

If I'm spending time in SoCal, I'm not going to spend too much or any of it in downtown LA.

If I'm spending time in NYC, I'm not going to spend too much or any of it in Westchester.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yeah, as i said in my post, it's roughly 85% MFH/15% SFH.

but i don't see how that affects anything. in my neighborhood if you have a 2,000 SF condo in a flat building next door to a 2,000 SF SFH bungalow that are similarly appointed, the bungalow is going to be ~50% more expensive because people are willing to pay for SFH.

generally speaking, SFH is more highly prized than MFH in american society (apples to apples).

But the bungalow is worth more in your area than it would be in a bungalow neighborhood. And, I'm sure condos in your neighborhood are also probably more expensive than most bungalow neighborhoods.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But the bungalow is worth more in your area than it would be in a bungalow neighborhood. And, I'm sure condos in your neighborhood are also probably more expensive than most bungalow neighborhoods.

of course.

what are the 3 first rules of real estate?

1. location!
2. location!
3. location!


in an apples to apples comparison (including location, the most important aspect of real estate) a SFH will have a higher value than an otherwise identical MFH in the same location because american society has a general preference for SFH, all other things being equal.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

of course.

what are the 3 first rules of real estate?

1. location!
2. location!
3. location!


in an apples to apples comparison (including location, the most important aspect of real estate) a SFH will have a higher value than an otherwise identical MFH in the same location because american society has a general preference for SFH, all other things being equal.

Here's what I'm saying. Will people pay a premium for yard space and a little separation from the neighbors, if they could otherwise enjoy the amenities of a multi-family neighborhood? Yes, I agree. But, does that mean that pure market forces have dictated that people prefer neighborhoods dominated single-family housing? No, I think it says the opposite. People will pay more to have their cake and eat it too, but if they have to choose between the two, they will pay for more the multi-family environment.

There is also a supply and demand element. The U.S. has no shortage of SFH, and if there were far less of it then that lifestyle would sell at a premium. Likewise, if we had a lot more multi-unit supply then the price would also go down.

[edale]

Originally Posted by pj3000

If I'm spending time in SoCal, I'm not going to spend too much or any of it in downtown LA.

If I'm spending time in NYC, I'm not going to spend too much or any of it in Westchester.

I think you said it all without even (maybe) meaning to.

SoCal vs NYC. One is a region, one is the city.

Tourists don't normally come to LA for "city" stuff like they do in New York, SF, or Chicago. Sure, you might come downtown to explore the Historic Core or walk through one of the commercial corridors elsewhere in the city like Melrose or Fairfax, but most people who come to LA think of outdoor recreation (beach, mountains) or big destination attractions (Disneyland, Universal, Getty). Exploring the city itself isn't really the draw for most people. LA was mostly built as the antithesis of cities on the east coast and midwest...it eschewed high rises in favor of lowrises, developed single family homes with yards and driveways instead of row houses with alleys. Creating an urban culture was never really the point of LA. Obviously this is surface level, but the point generally stands, I think.