undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgonehome4y ago0 comments

It's not even close - a crappy house on the peninsula is 1.7M, with the median closer to 2.5-3M.

I mean, look at this: https://www.redfin.com/CA/Palo-Alto/3785-Park-Blvd-94306/hom...

I think Austin is better about building too, meanwhile in the Bay Area they just rejected units desperately needed in the tenderloin because they might become a "tech dorm".

0 comments

ijidak4y ago

> https://www.redfin.com/CA/Palo-Alto/3785-Park-Blvd-94306/hom...

Wow. That is unreal.

Yeah, no region in almost any region of America comes close to Bay Area prices.

rcpt4y ago

Scroll to the bottom to "tax history" to see how this can be. Despite the value of the house going to the moon the previous owner was just sitting on a decade old assessment with no pressure to sell.

Matthias2474y ago

Vancouver BC might be in the same range now, where things like this show up for 2M CAD. And the conversion rate won't make up for the differences in salaries

kelnos4y ago

I don't think Palo Alto is a great comparison; it's a mixed new/old-money city where a lot of rich people live (with the ultra-rich next door in Menlo Park and Atherton). Compare Austin to something like Fremont, San Jose, or perhaps San Mateo. Sure, those will still be more expensive than Austin, but that $1.7M number is pretty realistic for a nice house in those other cities.

gonehomeOP4y ago

You can find a house for 1.7M in San Mateo if you’re lucky but it will still be small and old.

What you get for that in Austin is in a different league.

winkeyless4y ago

Yeah, Palo Alto is extraordinarily NIMBY.

A suburban area with single family houses + high paying jobs = exclusionary house prices

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse