The number of US cities where first-time homebuyers are faced with at least a $1 million price tag on the average entry-level home has nearly tripled in the past five years, according to new research.

A Thursday report from Zillow indicates that a typical starter home is now worth $1 million or more in 237 cities, up from 84 cities in 2019, underscoring America’s ongoing home affordability crisis.

“Affordability has been strained across the board,” Orphe Divounguy, a senior economist at Zillow, said. “We see the largest number of million-dollar starter homes in expensive coastal markets. We see them in markets with very low homeownership rates and we see them in markets with more building regulations.”

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Beverly Hills is literally a city. It is autonomous from the Los Angeles city government. It has its own government and its own laws.

    And do please show me where the L.A. homes under $400k are. There weren’t L.A. homes that cheap outside of Watts when we lived there over a decade ago and I’m not even sure about Watts.

    • tburkhol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      3 months ago

      https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/20159-Cohasset-St-UNIT-9-Winnetka-CA-91306/68991194_zpid/ I’m sorry if that doesn’t fit your criteria for a “L.A. home,” but it is a place you can live, in Los Angeles, under $400k.

      But that’s my point: some cities do not have any “starter” homes, at all, and defining a “starter home” as just the bottom third of every municipality is misleading bullshit. It implies that you need $1M to buy a home, and you don’t.

      I agree that home prices have gotten crazy and unaffordable for many. I just want to have a realistic discussion of what that means so we can work on realistic solutions, and “you need $1M mortgage just to get your foot in the door” doesn’t help.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Oh, okay. Sure. If you want to live in the middle of the SFV and are okay with a 3-hour commute, it’s doable. I don’t think you realize how big L.A. is. It took me well over an hour to get from NoHo, which is in the SFV, to the guy I bought weed from in Canoga Park, which is next to Winnetka. But sure. Go out far enough and the homes get marginally cheaper.

        • tburkhol@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          3 months ago

          I think we’re working with different definitions for ‘starter home.’ To me, ‘starter home’ is a real estate agent’s euphemism for ‘undesireable shithole.’ It is a home you expressly do not want to live in long-term. It’s temporary housing to build equity while you’re young, able to sacrifice living standard and comfort, and waiting to earn enough to upgrade to an actually desirable house.

          From the goalposts you’re moving, it sounds like you think a starter house is somewhere affordable that you’d be willing to move into today and live indefinitely. And yeah, that’s probably going to be unavailable to most people. Most people don’t get to live in their dream house in an ideal neighborhood. Never have.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            You do realize that you’re calling a house that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars an undesirable shithole, right? I think you’re proving my point.

            • tburkhol@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              3 months ago

              What exactly is your point? Because my point is that undesirable shitholes costing hundreds of thousands of dollars is a more pressing problem, with different solutions, than not being able to find a house in Beverly Hills under $4M.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                So your point had nothing to do with the article, which isn’t about $4 million Beverly Hills homes (which would be cheap for BH)?