Looking to buy in Los Angeles? You should probably consider Downtown. (Santa Monica: lease, condo)

[midnightfapper]

Originally Posted by thelopez2

Due to my business, I have actually seen a few HOA budgets of DTLA condos. The ones I've seen have 6-7 figure reserves.

that's laughable, as time goes on those condos become tremendous money pits that require a ton of capex.

i've owned fairly large class c multifamily assets in texas, $1mm is a relatively minor rehab on a 150 unit complex. even trivial things like exterior paint *really* adds up when you're dealing on this scale.

everybody plays the same game here with new condos and low fees. everything looks good on paper, everything is new (central energy plants, major systems, etc.), everything is under warranty. there will be plenty of mishaps down the road, unexpected surprises, etc. that'll eat into the budget.

plus people who live in those kind of places tend to be pretentious ****wits, they'll definitely want to update the "tired" and "old" look of the building over time.

just take a look at some 40 year old property, the hoa fees are four times that of a new building, resale values are substantially lower.

it's nuts people are paying this kind of money to live in a shoebox next door to skid row. they should be selling at 1/3rd the price.

i blame it on angelinos being clueless about the product... i mean what do you guys realistically have out there? a couple buildings in samo, mdr, westwood, century city and now downtown?

this will not end well (tm).

[pwright1]

Originally Posted by iama30something

Agreed. The problem I have, as a potential buyer, is that a 1000 sq/ ft condo selling in downtown for $599,000 is also selling for the same sq. ft by the beach for $599,000.

Which location will continue to hold it's value over the next 10, 20 or 30 years? Beach front property will always be valuable. Downtown might decline in 20 years.

Who knows...

Is $599,000 really beachfront property? As much as I like the beach I'd honestly rather live dt.

[thelopez2]

Originally Posted by pwright1

Is $599,000 really beachfront property? As much as I like the beach I'd honestly rather live dt.

Yup 90277

[LovinLosAngeles]

I love the beach, but i'd much rather live downtown in an urban environment. I can walk everywhere and take the metro when I need to. I save a lot of $$ that way. While the rest of Los Angeles is sitting on the 10, 405, 101

[ProjectMersh]

Originally Posted by Caladium

It's invalid for her to have an opinion based on the fact that she currently works in the area and has done so for 25 years?

Nothing wrong that poster having an opinion. But as noted that poster lives in Yucaipa...essentially exurban territory. So not surprising to hear a hostile attitude toward DTLA from someone who has chosen to live so far from work in DTLA that she/he must really dislike living in the middle of everything. So I take that opinion with a grain of salt...

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by LovinLosAngeles

I love the beach, but i'd much rather live downtown in an urban environment. I can walk everywhere and take the metro when I need to. I save a lot of $$ that way. While the rest of Los Angeles is sitting on the 10, 405, 101

This Is what is attracting people to downtown .. Of course it helps if you work closer to downtown too .

The westside used to be THE desirable area in la .. But now people with money have decided to move east .. Not because they have to but because hey want to .

People don't move to dtla because it's affordable anymore .. Those days are gone .

The nice part is that people don't HAVE to live in a dense ultra urban environment like dtla like they might have to in NYC .

[fumbling]

I think downtown LA is still pretty sketchy and dangerous to walk around at night, not like Santa Monica or Newport beach.

[thelopez2]

Originally Posted by fumbling

I think downtown LA is still pretty sketchy and dangerous to walk around at night, not like Santa Monica or Newport beach.

But is it improving, change takes time.

Originally Posted by jm1982

The westside used to be THE desirable area in la .. But now people with money have decided to move east .. Not because they have to but because hey want to

People don't move to dtla because it's affordable anymore .. Those days are gone .
.

Good, maybe prices of the suburbs or LA will drop and traffic will decrease and life of suburbia will get back to normal. These 1-2mil Mar Vista/West LA homes have just gotten way out of hand.

Something interesting will be, will people who own in DTLA also own places in the suburbs to get away once in a while. Will the desire to own a SFR dwindle. I know a few people that actually bought a second place in DTLA for the week and go to their beach house (own or rent) on the weekend or when traffic dies down. It is actually a kind of cool idea to have two place and two roommates.

Originally Posted by ProjectMersh

Nothing wrong that poster having an opinion. But as noted that poster lives in Yucaipa...essentially exurban territory. So not surprising to hear a hostile attitude toward DTLA from someone who has chosen to live so far from work in DTLA that she/he must really dislike living in the middle of everything. So I take that opinion with a grain of salt...

The poster from Yucaipa would rather live in Santa Monica than DTLA, should the opinions of only those desiring to live in the urban environment matter? Only those that want to live in Manhattan, Chicago, and other true urban downtown place should comment if DTLA is worth living in? Yes, she doesn't see how anyone would want to live in DTLA because we as Angelinos have never had something like it.

[thelopez2]

Originally Posted by midnightfapper

i've owned fairly large class c multifamily assets in texas, $1mm is a relatively minor rehab on a 150 unit complex. even trivial things like exterior paint *really* adds up when you're dealing on this scale.

everybody plays the same game here with new condos and low fees. everything looks good on paper, everything is new (central energy plants, major systems, etc.), everything is under warranty. there will be plenty of mishaps down the road, unexpected surprises, etc. that'll eat into the budget.

plus people who live in those kind of places tend to be pretentious ****wits, they'll definitely want to update the "tired" and "old" look of the building over time.

just take a look at some 40 year old property, the hoa fees are four times that of a new building, resale values are substantially lower.

it's nuts people are paying this kind of money to live in a shoebox next door to skid row. they should be selling at 1/3rd the price.

i blame it on angelinos being clueless about the product... i mean what do you guys realistically have out there? a couple buildings in samo, mdr, westwood, century city and now downtown?

this will not end well (tm).

Someone has to be the pioneer of these new ideas.

I have two condos in a 150 unit complex in Highland Park build in 1979, making it about 34 years old, it was repainted two years ago, termite repairs down a few years ago, roofs done some time in the last 7 years, driveways recoated, the building is not falling apart. over the last 15 years which I've owned them, the HOA fees have steadily gone up from 225 to 260, which also pays for the water for each unit. The resale value of these condos are currently at $260k, There aren't newly build condos to compare them to. If new condos were to go up, I'd gladly 1031 exchange them for higher rents and greater depreciation, which I'm considering with these DTLA places. You are right about people wanting to update these tired old look places, which is my biggest hinderance. The HOA is my building isn't trying to make a crown jewel building like what will happen with DTLA HOAs.

The ones next to skid row are actually significantly cheaper, there must be a forcefield protecting the ones further away.

The places which I know have a high HOA have 1) Taken out a loan for the Northridge Earthquake damage, most if now all should be paid off by now. 2) Want greater service, concierge, maintenace people on site, security. The smaller places are the ones that are usually mismanaged, where there will be a $200 monthly assessment for repairs. 3) Have a lot of amenities, tennis courts, pools, workout rooms.

Maybe it might not end well, people who bought for $600,000 might sell for $400,000 in 10 years. It is like costing them and extra $20,000 a year or $1700 a month, they might be stuck with upside properties as we had in 2007-2012. Maybe interest rate will soar adding additional downward pricing pressures. People will simply walk away and deal with the tax consequences. If they short sell or foreclose or even BK, it really didn't cost them that much more to live somewhere where they don't have to commute to work.

Living in DTLA and walking to work will never be as harsh as those other big cities that actually have seasons.

[LovinLosAngeles]

Originally Posted by fumbling

I think downtown LA is still pretty sketchy and dangerous to walk around at night, not like Santa Monica or Newport beach.

I have lived here for 2 years now and not once felt unsafe while walking at night. Not ONCE. Everyone has this perception that the big bad homeless person is going to stab you. No, they are just panhandling for change. That is my experience at least.