Then again I would describe most of the houses here as somewhere between a hovel and a shack in terms of build quality. But I’m getting used to it after 6 years.
I would agree if it weren’t for the fact that this is still a completely reasonable expectation in most of the rest of the country.
Of course it’s going to cost a crazy amount of money. It’s not even an option in Manhattan, but plenty of people would disagree it “sucks” there.
In Manhattan thats the expectation. You’re in a super dense area filled with high rises. Life is good for apartment dwelling.
In Mountain View, you’re in a suburb that’s mostly single family homes that you’re constantly reminded you won’t ever be able to afford.
> How is it reasonable in the least to expect a big house with a garage and a yard
That’s the lifestyle of the peninsula. It’s reasonable to expect the lifestyle you are constantly surrounded by. Back to the Manhattan analogy, $250k absolutely would not be considered good money if it could not afford you the ability to live like the average property owner.
The Bay Area is a stark contrast between the people lucky enough to have purchased 10+ years ago + some FAANGs and everyone else. Everyone else is stuck in a terrible apartment telling themselves stories about how they’ll get out after making their money or whatever.
It’s nice living in a walkable apartment with no car in Manhattan (or nyc in general). It’s dreary AF on the peninsula.
No, it's not. Should you be able to afford a home in Beverley Hills? Should you be able to afford a home in San Francisco itself? 40 years ago that was the norm.
Yes, it is. The norm in cities in the US until very recently was that you could get a middle class job, buy a small home, raise a family, etc. This phenomenon of only being able to lick the boots of the homeowners near the good jobs is relative new.
> able to afford a home in Beverley Hills
We’re talking about the entire Bay Area, not a specific suburb. Anywhere within an hour commute of Google HQ is like this.
> Should you be able to afford a home in San Francisco itself? 40 years ago that was the norm.
Yes. It was the norm. Then the nimby dickheads stepped in and pulled up the ladder behind them by blocking everything they could and pushed through a very favorable proposition to existing homeowners (prop 13).
Your opinion might be that it’s fine to block out an entire generation from the bay and rent seek. I personally think that’s a shitty drag on society propped up by government created housing scarcity.
This type of housing setup that would cost $300k in, say Dallas, will cost $2.5 million on the peninsula. Between property taxes, mortgage insurance, interest, and principal payments and a jaw dropping $140k down payment, that is a monthly payment of $14k or so.
Your take-home after taxes on 250k in the bay is probably around 160k, or 13.3k a month. Whoops, no “American dream” home for you.