LA homeowner here. Short answer is: not entirely true, as written.

The situation is that a vast expanse of the (very large) city of LA, and key enclaves like West Hollywood and Santa Monica (not formally part of LA, but surrounded by it) has had large and steady price increases for the past ~60 months straight. Renters have been priced out of one neighborhood after another.

It has caused a huge upheaval as people who had not noticed the pace of change have had to move to distant neighborhoods, or out of the area entirely. You see a lot more homeless, and there is a political struggle about people living in mobile homes parked at the edges of parks, etc. This upheaval is a hot issue.

But (coming to the point) it is still, barely, possible for middle class people to find homes in LA city. But you have to pay a lot more (say, 400k), and/or accept some living conditions that are marginal. When middle class Anglo families are seriously considering moving to Boyle Heights condos...it's a new thing.

I don't have time just now, but looking at real estate listings for Cypress Park might be informative. This is a tough neighborhood with significant long standing gang activity. Not South LA (aka "south central"), but close. Example: https://www.redfin.com/CA/Los-Angeles/3608-Arroyo-Seco-Ave-9... (sold for 360k last year).

Here is another comp. (Not cherry picking)

450k for a 2+1, 744 sq. ft. -- https://www.redfin.com/CA/Los-Angeles/3618-Arroyo-Seco-Ave-9...

In a neighborhood with regular gang related homicides -- e.g., https://www.theeastsiderla.com/2016/08/one-dead-in-cypress-p...

Our rent went up 7% this year in LA, but our income didn't. The writing is on the wall I think.

In what part of LA? What part of LA would you move to if your rent/income became untenable?

Much of the city of Los Angeles is rent-stabilized, meaning rent can only increase up to 3.5% a year as long as the tenant stays there. But when the move out, the rent can reset to market rates.

I just moved out of a place in Studio City, paying $1200 for a small one-bedroom apartment. It's listed now for $1600, and I'd bet on it filling within 10 days.

So that's a 1/3 increase in rent I was able to avoid by staying in one place for a long while, but if I'd been moving around it would have cost much more over the years.

In the far (semi-rural) reaches of Sacramento now, and happier for it!

Right, I get that. But that's true of every real estate market. The problem in San Francisco is that middle class families are priced out of every neighborhood in the city; their only cost effective options might be in another city.

Is that true of LA? It's only the case if there's no reasonable neighborhood within the boundaries of LA you could move to after an untenable rent increase in your current neighborhood.

For instance: it's obviously not the case that middle class families are priced out of the Chicago market. Chicago is full of neighborhoods full of hours and townhomes and three-flats that span pretty much the whole price spectrum. On the other hand: some neighborhoods that were pretty reasonable 10 years ago (Roscoe Village, or Bucktown) are now so expensive that their demography is changing. That doesn't mean Chicago is pricing out middle class families; it means Bucktown is.

LA is a MUCH bigger city than San Francisco, especially in terms of geography. I'm not sure an meaningful comparison can be made as a result.

There are certainly areas of LA at least as big as the total area of SF where middle class families can not afford to live. There are also areas at least as big as the total area of SF where lower-middle class families are the vast majority of residents.

The cities are just too different to make a meaningful comparison in my opinion.

Right, I get that too. But then: is the article correct? Are middle class families being priced out of LA?

I think the answer is yes, but depends on your definition of affordability.

Median household income for city of LA is ~$60k. Without detailing the numbers, maybe if you're really liberal with mortgage qualification you get a $450k home at that income (house or condo). In a broad Redfin search of the Valley/LA Basin and a bit beyond to the east/south (this includes many cities outside of LA), you have:

Total homes for sale: 4,720 <$450k: 873 (18%) In Safe Neighborhoods: 294 (6%) (I used my own definition of safe, but it's very liberal and includes many places where walking around after dark alone would not be advised, but it's an urban area after all so that's understandable)

Btw, and this is where people say you're not entitled to something, but if you are just talking about single family homes (LA is very single family home-focused) in a safe hood for <450k the number of availabilities drops to 51 homes (that's 1% of inventory).

Lots of other nuances here, but just a broad brushstroke look at the market.

I live in L.A. and as far as I'm concerned, yes they (we) are being priced out. You can live an hour away from your job or in a dangerous neighborhood, but that doesn't really mean the city is affordable.

Won't those "dangerous" neighborhoods likely gentrify as priced out middle class people move to them?

... that's definitely what happens in Chicago...

What's Bayview like in San Francisco these days?

It's just a pointless question to ask if middle class families can live in the city limits (an arbitrary border) in my opinion.

The better question is do middle class families have to live as far away from their jobs in LA as they do in SF, and the answer to that question is increasingly "yes."

Near Hollywood. Have no idea where I'd move, we are already in the cheapest area I consider tolerable with a family.