4 ms·

Architect explains why new LA housing is aimed at “luxury” buyers

9 points by dalfonso 9y ago

ams6110 9y ago
The thing is, as new luxury housing is built, existing housing becomes cheaper. Eventually the older developments become "affordable" because all the wealthy buyers want the trendy new places. There are some exceptions e.g. gentrification but that tends to happen only in areas with good location, and architecturally interesting but run-down structures. Most developments are not that. They just get cheaper as they get older.
- timbo1642 9y ago
  Actually you're completely wrong. It doesn't make anything cheaper at all. There is absolutely no shortage and there are more than enough people to occupy the older buildings. Its very rare from someone to go from an old building to a new one, it usually costs MUCH more. A 1 bedroom in brentwood is about $2000 a month in an old building, in a new building expect to pay 50%+ more. AT LEAST.
- pfranz 9y ago
  I can see how that would work in smaller towns, but I just haven't seen that in LA--mostly because of sqft. The only exception is something luxurious in the 1920s is considered small today. I was looking over all of the places I've rented since moving here 10+years ago. A studio built in 1947 (multi-unit apartment), 1br apartment built in 1961 (multi-unit apartment), 1br built in 1923 (house split into a triplex), 1br built in 1958 (multi-unit apartment). When I was looking at buying houses in LA, one neighborhood I was looking at I was told most of them were middle-class Jewish workers in the textile industry when the houses were built in the 20s (I think). Eventually, they moved out east of LA for larger, cheaper housing. The 10 interstate was built, splitting the neighborhood in two and this was the seedy side. I guess that's an example of what you're talking about, there. Because of the train, the neighborhood was recovering and was already a bit much for me to afford.

4 ms·

Architect explains why new LA housing is aimed at “luxury” buyers

9 points by dalfonso 9y ago

ams6110 9y ago
The thing is, as new luxury housing is built, existing housing becomes cheaper. Eventually the older developments become "affordable" because all the wealthy buyers want the trendy new places. There are some exceptions e.g. gentrification but that tends to happen only in areas with good location, and architecturally interesting but run-down structures. Most developments are not that. They just get cheaper as they get older.
- timbo1642 9y ago
  Actually you're completely wrong. It doesn't make anything cheaper at all. There is absolutely no shortage and there are more than enough people to occupy the older buildings. Its very rare from someone to go from an old building to a new one, it usually costs MUCH more. A 1 bedroom in brentwood is about $2000 a month in an old building, in a new building expect to pay 50%+ more. AT LEAST.
- pfranz 9y ago
  I can see how that would work in smaller towns, but I just haven't seen that in LA--mostly because of sqft. The only exception is something luxurious in the 1920s is considered small today. I was looking over all of the places I've rented since moving here 10+years ago. A studio built in 1947 (multi-unit apartment), 1br apartment built in 1961 (multi-unit apartment), 1br built in 1923 (house split into a triplex), 1br built in 1958 (multi-unit apartment). When I was looking at buying houses in LA, one neighborhood I was looking at I was told most of them were middle-class Jewish workers in the textile industry when the houses were built in the 20s (I think). Eventually, they moved out east of LA for larger, cheaper housing. The 10 interstate was built, splitting the neighborhood in two and this was the seedy side. I guess that's an example of what you're talking about, there. Because of the train, the neighborhood was recovering and was already a bit much for me to afford.