In the city of Los Angeles, most residents rent rather than own the homes they live in—and improving economic conditions haven’t done much to change that, according to a new report from Zillow.
More than 64 percent of households in the city were occupied by renters in 2016, the most recent year for which the U.S. Census Bureau has released estimates.
Of the 50 largest U.S. cities, Los Angeles has the fourth-highest share of renters, behind only Miami, New York, and Boston. Neighboring Long Beach is fifth on the list, with a 62.3 percent renter rate.
The share of renters in Los Angeles has grown slightly since 2010, when a struggling economy and strict lending requirements prevented many would-be buyers from purchasing homes. At that time, renters occupied 62.4 percent of LA households.
Zillow economist Aaron Terrazas tells Curbed that homeownership rates in LA have not mirrored those of other cities with high housing costs and a lot of renters. In New York, San Francisco, and Boston, the percentage of renters has declined since 2000; in LA, the opposite is true.
Terrazas suggests that wages in the city haven’t kept pace with home prices, which are at an all-time high. With mortgage rates rising, homes are likely to become out of reach for even more prospective buyers.
Another factor contributing to LA’s high renter rate may be the meandering boundaries of the city itself. Terrazas points out that many renters who become buyers may purchase homes in nearby cities with cheaper prices, better amenities, or more highly rated schools.
In just LA County, around 54 percent of households were occupied by renters in 2016, suggesting that homeownership rates are significantly higher outside the city of Los Angeles.
Still, the share of renters countywide has also gone up since 2000, mirroring a national trend identified in the report.
As the housing market gets more difficult for first-time buyers to navigate, Terrazas says that cities in which renters constitute a majority of residents may simply be the “new normal.”
- How much does it cost to rent in LA right now? [Curbed LA]
- Los Angeles County median home price soars to new record high: $615K [Curbed LA]
- Why buying a house today is so much harder than in 1950 [Curbed]
Comments
So you’re saying that the second largest city in the country has a greater % of ownership than 44th and 21st largest cities in the U.S.? Gosh when you put it that way you really make some kind of point.
By Efffron on 08.09.18 4:37pm
In most major cities in the US, a house can be built on less than 5000 square feet of land, making ownership a possibility for a large swath of the population. In LA you can’t, and so things are expensive.
But hey the houses are big and they have lots of parking. Isn’t that what zoning was supposed to do? Keep the riffraff out and provide more parking than anyone could possibly use?
By RXBXUXNX on 08.09.18 4:47pm
Wrong. They aren’t providing more parking than anyone could possibly use. In new construction they are providing an appropriate amount of parking based on the number of people who have cars. To that end, there are parking shortages in most neighborhoods in LA which is evidenced by a lack of open street parking and more and more neighborhoods requesting permit parking only to keep people from parking there. All of you anti-car people think that everyone else is just like you when in reality you are in a small minority.
By LADude on 08.09.18 5:04pm
Not really sure why the rest of us should bother with having to subsidize your private car storage on our publicly funded streets, or requiring that private developers subsidize car storage at the expense of housing prices. If developers want to include parking because they think it will make their units more marketable, fine. But mandating a parking minimum is artificially promoting the use of cars. Given how much of a whiny diaper baby you are about traffic, I would think you would champion any policy designed to make everyone else less reliant on cars as a mode of transportation.
By disqusted on 08.09.18 11:03pm
You live in the USA which, in the post-Depression era, has decided that we as a society have to subsidize everything for everyone even if you don’t take advantage of those subsidies. I don’t have kids and rarely see a doctor and have never had any major hospitalizations. And yet, I still have to subsidize schools and medicine for everyone else. Arguing that because you and a very small minority of people don’t personally have a car and thus don’t take advantage of transportation infrastructure, and thus you shouldn’t have to subsidize that infrastructure is not a persuasive argument. My money is used to subsidize the Metro – rail and buses – and I rarely use those and yet I don’t complain about contributing to fund them.
By LADude on 08.10.18 10:51am
With all due respect CC, if you don’t have kids and don’t need to see doctors on a regular why are wasting time here in LA? Find a beautiful island to explore like Maui or Bali or Taiwan and save all that earned paper in the bank. LA is a place to visit not necessarily live at this point. We all know it’s too frustrating, too entitled and too slow to make real progress on multiple fronts ie: transportation, proper immigration, reasonable rent control 5-7% etc…it’s like the local government is trolling all of us in this perpetually incompetent feedback loop system.
By Honest Bruin on 08.10.18 2:05pm
Maybe you weren’t paying attention, or don’t have any reading comprehension skills, but I’m the one who wasn’t complaining about having to subsidize things I don’t use. But by your logic, you agree with me that Disqusted should move away from LA because he doesn’t like subsidizing parking he doesn’t use and doesn’t like the zoning and lack of planning by our city. I’m glad we agree!
By LADude on 08.10.18 3:13pm
I think HB was just trying to help out with alternatives, no reason to get pissy about it CC.
By LeBasque on 08.10.18 5:57pm
Wow CC, I was really just offering you some solid options, as they have worked for me and we have a similar perspective on LA. I recommend most of your postings, so I wasn’t trolling you in anyway, but it seems as if you were very triggered by my post, and that is a misunderstanding.
By Honest Bruin on 08.10.18 5:59pm
Sorry if I interpreted your comment in the wrong way. I own a condo, have a very good job and am very happy in Los Angeles, despite being over taxed and having my money spent on lots of things I don’t necessarily agree with.
By LADude on 08.13.18 1:46pm
And btw, eliminating parking requirements doesn’t make people less reliant on cars because public transpiration is still inadequate and people still need cars, it just results in a lack of parking which is why they have those parking minimums. We shouldn’t let developers skimp on parking to save money on construction costs because that parking is necessary. And if you personally don’t want to subsidize parking or have increased housing costs as a result, then move to a city that is less reliant on cars. If you choose to live in LA in your single family residence, then deal with it bro.
By LADude on 08.10.18 11:01am
This makes me so upset. I and many people here do not want to rent forever. It’s not an option to move away since all our lives and families are here. I can’t even imagine how young people in 30 years will be able to buy.
By Kermit Kardashian on 08.09.18 6:45pm
Kermit, you sound entitled
By LAwastheplace on 08.09.18 9:38pm
Thanks
By Kermit Kardashian on 08.10.18 9:45pm
"It’s not an option to move away since all our lives and families are here."
It sounds like your head might literally explode once you read up on the phenomenon of migrants and immigrants throughout the entire course of human history…
By disqusted on 08.09.18 11:05pm
Moving is not an option what’s so difficult to understand
By Kermit Kardashian on 08.10.18 9:45pm
Then stop your whining then and deal
By LAwastheplace on 08.12.18 10:57am
ok and
By Kermit Kardashian on 08.13.18 12:03am
Are you in jail? If not, moving is always an option. Just because something is difficult doesn’t turn it into a non-option.
By disqusted on 08.12.18 1:02pm
I am not moving to Alabama and leaving my family and career behind. That is irrational.
By Kermit Kardashian on 08.13.18 12:03am
Keep rationalizing your poor choices at your own peril. "I like CA and my family is here" is an expensive preference when you are unwilling to make any concessions.
Sometimes getting ahead financially means moving places we don’t like as much, tightening our belts, and thinking outside the box.
By MMVic on 08.13.18 9:29am
There are McDonald’s in Alabama, you know. But with your attitude, you wouldnt fit in down there
By LAwastheplace on 08.13.18 2:31pm
Yes, moving away is an option. People do it every day – across the country, and in and out of our country. People seek out places that best fit their income and lifestyle. You always have a choice.
By MMVic on 08.10.18 11:18am
Instead of getting upset, you could do things the way many of us have in order to purchase real estate or any other material possessions you want but can’t afford- go to college. Pursue a degree in a professional field that will enable you to be able to get a high-paying job when you’re finished. Don’t take out student loans, work and support yourself and live beneath your means. Save a chunk of your paycheck, no matter how big or small it is. Don’t be emotional when house-shopping. Purchase a home that you can afford, not one your realtor or the bank says you can afford.
Or, do what MMVic says, you can actually move. Other people do.
Or, sit there and whine that it’s not fairrrrrr
By FrogDweller on 08.10.18 1:06pm
"Pursue a degree in a professional field that will enable you to be able to get a high-paying job when you’re finished."
"Don’t take out student loans,"
Choose one.
By Greyvagabond on 08.13.18 9:34am