5 ms·
It wasn't the housing that was regarded as ghetto, but the people who used to live there.
by anbu32 11y ago
It wasn't the housing that was regarded as ghetto, but the people who used to live there.
- potatolicious 11y agoCould be both. Here in NYC you can find a lot of tenement housing going for exorbitant prices - originally built on the cheap for the poorest of the poor. It's why some $3500 apartments have showers in the kitchen - saves on running more pipe.
- refurb 11y agoThat was actually my point. The areas of SF that have gotten ridiculously expensive are areas where the housing is actually sub-standard to what you'd see in most of America. The house that just sold for $2M wouldn't even be worth $200K in most US cities. The house is just beat up and old. I could see paying $2M for a gorgeous house that is either new or recently upgraded. There are houses that are basically condemned going for >$1M!
- danans 11y agoI think the mistake you're making is thinking that the value of houses in SF is dominated by the value of their structure. Rather, it's dominated by the value of the land they occupy. In the case of the $2M sub-standard SF house in a desirable area you mentioned, if it burned down to the ground, the land would still be worth well north of a million dollars. Edit: wording