[ceeplusplus]

Funnily enough buying a house close enough to work in NYC is actually cheaper, because Jersey City is viable and NY/NJ don't have Prop 13 to inflate property values. I could buy a 5bdr luxury home in a nice area with great schools in NYC in one of the outer boroughs or a high end luxury new construction in Jersey City. That same cash gets you a shack in a shitty part of the East Bay.

> make it more popular with new hot properities and it will price you out further

It's a common NIMBY misconception that adding more supply increases prices. Basic economics says this is obviously wrong.

> The truth is there are a lot of people making more money who want housing in Freemont

I'm pretty sure my income puts me in the top 10% of income in the Bay and definitely top 1% nationally. You're saying that less than 10% of the population should be able to purchase a starter home (what I mean by a shack). Do you not listen to what you're saying?

[ipaddr]

Average price in Freemont is 1.3 million.

Top 1% nationwide is: 538,926 Top 10% in bay area: 534,600

If you make only 100k with no savings or partner you might be priced out of that 6000ft average home. Most people will buy as a couple, have a down payment and get help from parents which puts you at a disadvantage but it is still possible.

No idea if a 5 bedroom NJ home is equal to a 3 bedroom 6000 ft home in Freemont. Not sure one location has more value. I would choose Freemont over NJ.

[ceeplusplus]

I see you are out of touch with the housing market. Zillow doesn't give an average but most of the homes listed in Fremont there are above $1.3M, more like 1.5-1.8M if you want something bigger than 1200 sqft. If you filter by >1500 sqft everything starts at 1.5M+. So no, there's no 6000sqft "average" home, these are all starter homes averaging 1.5-1.8M. Then factor in that most houses get 100-200k over asking price during the insane bidding process.

> If you make only 100k with no savings or partner you might be priced out of that 6000ft average home. Most people will buy as a couple, have a down payment and get help from parents which puts you at a disadvantage but it is still possible

Do you listen to what you're saying? A top 10% earner in the region needs to buy as a couple and get help from parents to afford a _starter home_? So everyone else that's under the 90th percentile is just screwed?

> Top 1% nationwide is: 538,926 Top 10% in bay area: 534,600

90th percentile income in 2018 in the Bay was $384k [1]. Someone in the top 10% of incomes should not be struggling to afford a basic home with 3 bedrooms in a mediocre area.

[1]: https://www.thecalifornian.com/story/news/2020/01/31/bay-are...

[ipaddr]

http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Inc...

The Bay area numbers I gave are from 2021 source included.

Here are some current prices: https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Fremont_CA

The 1450+ feet one for 1.2 seems nice. The 760 one seems within reach.

The prices are similiar around the world. 1.5-1.8 is the average house price in Toronto. If New York/NJ is under valued and you can get a similiar home for less I would probably make the move.

[ceeplusplus]

> The Bay area numbers I gave are from 2021 source included.

That's household income. But sure, put me in the top 20% instead of the top 10%. Still incredibly ridiculous that an 80th percentile earner cannot afford a basic home.

> Here are some current prices

What you linked are apartments/townhomes. These have much higher HOA fees and are priced accordingly. The sticker price seems lower but the monthly payments end up the same as more expensive SFHs. To boot, most of them are really small - everything over 1500 sqft is over 1.3M which is ridiculous. So no, that's not really more affordable. Density doesn't mean everyone lives in a shoebox, it means building taller so the same land can fit 5x more people.

> The 760 one seems within reach

Again, if a 800sqft apartment that looks like it was built 70 years ago is all that's within reach of an 80th percentile household then you need to re-evaluate housing policy.

> The prices are similiar around the world. 1.5-1.8 is the average house price in Toronto

No, it's only similar in places with similarly dysfunctional real estate markets and NIMBYism as CA. Toronto and Vancouver famously have terrible SFH zoning policies. When you look at places like Atlanta, Miami, Austin, Chicago, etc. they are nowhere near the levels seen in CA.

> If New York/NJ is under valued and you can get a similiar home for less I would probably make the move

Or I can keep voting against NIMBYs and vote for densifying the Bay.

[ipaddr]

Density means accepting smaller. If you are expecting New York style tall buildings in a prime earthquake risk area you won't.

Austin and Atlanta have smaller population densities compared to SF. SF is double Austin.

An 800sqft apartment is larger than any apartment I've rented. New condos can have 500sqft and still go for 800k in dense cities.

[ceeplusplus]

Downtown SF manages to have tall buildings. And there are a ton of 5+1 or 6+1 units going up, which in itself will 3-4x density from height and from smaller setbacks.

> Density means accepting smaller

Strongly disagree. You can still have 1200+sqft apartments. Most of the 2 and 3bd luxury apartments near me are around 1000-1100 sqft.

> An 800sqft apartment is larger than any apartment I've rented.

Not sure what kind of apartment you're renting... (or maybe you're out of touch with the market?) 500sqft is a studio and you're not fitting much more than a bed and desk in there. You have to remember that square footage includes things like bathroom, closet, washer/dryer if they're in unit, etc. And that realtors exaggerate so in practice an apartment advertised as 500 sqft is more like 350.

Please just take a look at Zillow/Redfin for one moment and tell me where you see 500sqft condos that look like actual condos rather than studios.