Welcome to Curbed Comparisons, where we explore what you can rent or buy for a certain dollar amount in various LA ’hoods. We’ve found five homes and condos within about $10,000 of today’s price: $790,000.
Highland Park
Here’s a two-bedroom, two-bathroom bungalow with a downstairs bonus space that could be used as a little home office. The Spanish-style dwelling, which clocks in at 1,052 square feet, was built in 1924 but has been updated over the years. It has an open-concept kitchen equipped with granite counters, stainless steel appliances, bar-seating, and a breakfast nook. It opens to a wood deck with views out to the hills. The compact 2,147-square-foot property is listed at $799,000.
Studio City
Walking distance to the LA River and its walking and biking path, plus bar- and restaurant-lined Ventura Boulevard, this unit is part of a condominium complex that opened in 2017. In 1,400 square feet, it holds two bedrooms and two and a half baths. Features include wide-plank oak floors; custom window treatments; and a master suite with a walk-in closet, soaking tub, and private patio. The unit comes with in-unit laundry and access to the complex’s gym and barbecue area. The listing price is $799,000, plus monthly HOA fees of $485.
Mar Vista
Over on the Westside, this three-level unit with soaring ceilings is generously sized at 1,617 square feet. It holds three bedrooms and three bathrooms, plus a flexible loft-like space. The sunny main living area features a brick fireplace, built-ins, and a time-capsule kitchen. Part of a seven-unit building that dates to 1981 and is located just south of Venice Boulevard, near restaurants and the Culver Bike Path, the condo has an asking price of $800,000, plus monthly HOA dues of $415.
Glendale
This Spanish-style residence has surely seen some better days. But with many original details intact, it could be restored to its 1930s glory. Those details can be found mostly in the living room, which has a barreled ceiling, grand fireplace, and picture window. Other period details include wrought iron fixtures and arched and scalloped entryways. In all, the home measures 1,526 square feet and contains three bedrooms and one a half baths and sits on 6,718-square-foot lot with sizable yard and detached two-car garage. The asking price? $780,000.
Jefferson Park
Sold less than two years ago, this remodeled bungalow is flipping back to the market with subway tile galore, recessed lighting, and new appliances and fixtures. Other updates include royal blue kitchen cabinets, an open layout, and a freshly landscaped backyard with a wood deck, which can be accessed via French doors from the master suite. In 1,496 square feet, the dwelling contains three bedrooms and two bathrooms, plus an extra room labeled in the property’s 3D tour as a family room. The lot spans 5,005 square feet and comes with a detached one-car garage. It’s listed at $795,000.
Comments
I went with Glendale, although it needs a lot of work it’s the kind of work I enjoy doing and besides the house next door looks like Mildred Pierce’s house
By mrjim1 on 04.10.20 1:40pm
Lol, as it turns out the Glendale house really is just a couple of blocks from the house they used in filming Mildred Pierce. Maybe even the same builder
By mrjim1 on 04.10.20 1:46pm
Yup. That house would be a fun project.
By LosFeliz$ean on 04.10.20 8:01pm
I’m more interested in knowing what will $790k buy me in August.
By OliverTwistedLA on 04.10.20 2:30pm
Don’t ever suggest that prices might go down in LA. You will trigger a lot of fierce reaction from the agents here. It infuriates them to think that housing might become less expensive.
By nated111 on 04.10.20 11:56pm
Anyone recall how long into past recessions it took for property values to drop like a rock? Or is that even a given (not trying to argue either way… genuinely curious?)
Not sure 2008 is the best analogue given the housing market is very different today (harder to get a loan; less housing being built in general.)
Seems like prices will have to drop if unemployment stays in double digits for a few years while we sort through this crisis… probably just a question of how much, right?
By corner soul on 04.11.20 10:10am
Major housing price cycles in Los Angeles since 1975:
(1) Bull market (first quarter of 1975 through the third quarter of 1980): real home price increased by 69% over 23 quarters.
Bear market (1980 Q4 to 1984 Q2): real price decreased by 9% for 15 quarters.
(2) Bull market (1984 Q3-1989 Q4): up 67% for 22 quarters.
Bear market (1990 Q1-1997 Q2): down 37% for 30 quarters.
(3) Bull market (1997 Q3-2006 Q4): up 166% for 38 quarters.
Bear market (2007 Q1-2012 Q2): down 43% for 22 quarters.
Source:
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0818-yu-la-housing-bubble-20150819-story.html
By nated111 on 04.11.20 10:33am
Since the 1980s, LA has turned into a boom and bust housing market. Prices go up excessively and then down excessively. It doesn’t happen overnight as you can see, it takes some time for reality to hit after properties sit on the market. According to the LA Times, this downturn will have higher unemployment than the last one, and prices became even more detached from local income levels, so you do the math.
By nated111 on 04.11.20 10:38am
One more point. I don’t understand the hostility in this forum to falling housing prices. High housing prices were ruining LA. People were spending half their paychecks on rent and liquidating savings on down payments. Young educated college grads were leaving Los Angeles for the sole reason that housing prices were too high. It was an unhealthy situation for everyone except real estate agents, sellers, and speculators.
By nated111 on 04.11.20 11:10am
"Realty" and "reality" are one important letter apart.
By Necco on 04.11.20 11:24am
Disagreeing with you is not necessarily "hostility". Your reluctance to actually take a guess as to how much the current crisis will affect the market for specific homes reeks of bad faith.
You have a point, I think it’s a decent one, but your willingness to go snowflake doesn’t help your argument.
By LosFeliz$ean on 04.11.20 12:43pm
Here’s my guess. The last two bear markets in LA caused a 43% (2007-12) and 37% (1990-97) decline. So I would say a prediction of a 40% decline this time around is about right, over a several year time span.
Unemployment will be higher than both of these time periods, and housing prices were extremely inflated, so it could actually be worse.
Certain neighborhoods will be hit harder than others, where prices are more divergent from income levels. For example Leimert Park’s median income level is 50k or so, and $1m+ houses never really made sense in these locations. Faircrest Heights is another one that comes to mind.
The interesting group to watch this time around are income properties. They might be hit really hard because renters are simply not paying rent. Many of these renters will never pay the rent due and would rather risk being sued (how would you collect from them?). So the mom and pop landlords might be in a tough bind. This will bring down rents and income property prices.
As a whole, a big drop in prices and increase in affordability is GREAT for the city. From an income to price ratio, LA has been one of the least affordable cities in the nation. As I said before, other than for greedy sellers, speculators, and real estate agents, the high rent and housing have been the biggest drag on this city over the past 5 years, causing extreme hardship in the community.
As far as guessing how individual properties will sell, I have no clue. There’s always a sucker, and reality hasn’t set in for many buyers and sellers. Even though one or two properties do not represent the trend downward.
By nated111 on 04.11.20 5:36pm
We’ll see. I’ve got a front row seat for income properties anyway.
By LosFeliz$ean on 04.11.20 5:40pm
Good for you. For income properties wait until prices come down to a level where you are at least cash flow neutral or positive- i.e. your total mortgage, tax, insurance monthly payments (after a 20% down payment) are equal or less than a realistic monthly rent price. Then jump right in!
By nated111 on 04.11.20 6:03pm
The 2007 peak wasn’t as high as you might think. It was born of fraudulent lending practices that resulted in a collapse. I remember a number of modest, not well maintained houses going for unbelievable prices at the time. And they went into foreclosure mere months later. So the 40% decline you predict isn’t really realistic if you look at what the "true" market was doing at that time. I bought a property in 2007 for 630K. It was overpriced and I knew it. Even at the low point of the market, it didn’t drop in value below 500K (a little lower than what a normal market would have priced it). Still, 20+% is a bit of a shock. The problem with the market today isn’t high prices per se in a healthy economy ( the real estate market has been pretty hot because people have the funds to support it). The cause of today’s problem is the economic effect of the corona virus (this is separate from the human cost).
By kcp1 on 04.12.20 10:17am
You’ve repeated the same false theory at least 8 times. 2007 housing prices went down in LA because of the recession, not fraudulent practices. Very few subprime foreclosures in LA. Same reason housing prices went down in the 90s and same reason housing prices went down before. Why did prices go down 37% in the 90s if your theory is correct?
The problem in today’s market IS high prices. The median family income in LA county is 60-70k and the median house price is 650k. This is likely the biggest disconnect in the entire country. It has everything to do with local hyped up bidding wars.
By nated111 on 04.12.20 10:52am
My friend, what do you think caused the 07 recession – don’t you remember the banking meltdown we faced? Derivatives. In that case all those fraudulently-developed and then marketed mortgage tranches that worked like spider webs through the banking market. That’s what caused the recession. (When housing prices decline, that’s an effect of some event, not a cause.) BTW, prices went down circa 2000 due to the tech stock bubble meltdown.
Lots of potential buyers cannot afford today’s prices, but that’s the history of any market. Lots of potential buyers can afford today’s prices and that fuels the prices you refer to. Prices are not arbitrary. They are a function of supply and demand, and what anyone at any given moment is willing to pay for a product – any product. No one is obligated to pay a specific price for a house, but the result is that a buyer will have fewer purchasing options. Ugly, but true. That’s the way it has always been.
This recession is caused by the effects of the corona virus shutdown of the economy. Prices will decline, but no one knows by how much. There are still lots of folk out there with the income and assets to buy property. But as in any recession, it’s the middle and lower-income classes that bear the brunt of financial losses. And yet, they are the groups that are least likely to benefit from lower housing prices because they have suffered dramatic income losses.
By kcp1 on 04.12.20 2:14pm
Exclusionary zoning is a big reason for the high prices too… California is a very desirable place to live and we seem to go our of our way to make it as expensive as possible to build affordable housing here.
I doubt median rents would ever have climbed so high if 2/3 of the region wasn’t zoned exclusively for single family homes and strip malls…. and if it didn’t take like 5 years to build an apartment building (with half the building dedicated to vehicle storage.)
By corner soul on 04.12.20 2:45pm
Go "snowflake"? So you ARE a right wing troll.
By Necco on 04.11.20 9:41pm
Huh? Whatever, I couldn’t care less what you ARE; I’m here to see what people THINK. Nothing to see from you I guess.
By LosFeliz$ean on 04.12.20 7:52am
Uh, huh.
By Necco on 04.12.20 1:07pm
Thanks for the data/link… I’m not hostile at all about it (though maybe you’re referring more to other people, I dunno?)
I agree, high prices are a big problem… would obviously be better long term if we moved away from a boom/bust economic model to one of slow, but steady growth… not holding my breath for that though.
FWIW, I bought last year and stand to lose money if the bottom falls out. But I kinda went into it knowing we were at the peak of the market, and purchased with the long view in mind.
Guess we’ll see how this all plays out soon enough… short term doesn’t look that rosy tho.
By corner soul on 04.11.20 1:47pm
I agree our community would be more healthy if we had gradual growth and prices were connected to income levels. But that’s the LA bidding hysteria and speculation culture. If you can afford your place for 10 years, prices always come back. If you enjoy your place in the meantime and have a healthy income, you’re doing better than most even if the equity does not cooperate!
By nated111 on 04.11.20 5:42pm
That’s what I figure… not like our savings would be any more secure in the market short term
And if the fed/banks keep lowering interest rates we can refinance and lower our mortgage payments. In the meantime, tighten the ole belt and hold on for the ride!
By corner soul on 04.11.20 6:40pm
What do wanna bet, that "Mr" is a total plant on this web site? Curbed keeps deep-sixing cities that get no responses. Web sites financially depend upon ad -clicks. This is a game. Either "Mr" is an elderly real estate agent, or "he" is a plant. We are being manipulated. "Mr" "conveniently" comments on every post in CurbedLA.
By Necco on 04.11.20 10:02pm