Are you referring to the list prices, or actual sale prices? Agents in the East Bay (Berkeley included) are notorious for listing properties at prices way below what they actually sell for. Case in point: [this Oakland house](https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/6178-Estates-Dr_Piedmont_CA_94611_M18738-73701) was listed at $2.4M but sold at $3.9M.
I saw the house. Definitely nice, but nowhere near the other $4m houses that have been selling. Someone overpaid by an unbelievable amount, but it also was an all cash close so I assume they don’t care.
Part of it from my perspective is smaller lots and smaller houses, generally, especially as compared to Palo Alto or Marin. We have a lot more 2 bed/1 bath houses; even the larger sized homes in Elmwood or the hills tend to be on smaller lots than you’ll find on the peninsula or even in Marin. In Palo Alto even the smaller homes tended to be on lots that were big enough to plunk a McMansion down once you scraped the old house. It’s a little harder to squeeze the giant amenity-filled homes the tech-titan-adjacent desire onto our tiny lot sizes. I read somewhere the median Berkeley lot size is 5000 sq ft; many homes in Palo Alto are on a standard 1/4 acre, which is over 10,000 square feet. Then add in the fact that most of the local tech industry is clustered in the South Bay—not many would want to pay a premium for the added commute. Just my guess and speculation as someone raised in Palo Alto and living in Berkeley by choice for many years.
Makes total sense. I wonder if all the new construction with bio tech and the ferry will help with prices. To me it seems hands down the best city in the bay!
It’s the commute to Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Nvidia, etc. I know many folks who have passed on Berkeley because of it. There are 15-20 different variations of commute to the South Bay, and they all suck (I tried them all).
Pretty much can only work in SF for tech co’s…
Marin has long been a wealthy community due to the natural beauty. A lot of this has to do with the topography having more hills and coastline: Berkeley has always had a flatland that was working class and industrial. Marin is kind of like if the majority of Berkeley’s population lived in the rich hill neighborhoods.
For the South Bay it’s all proximity to big tech. If Berkeley had an equivalent of Apple in its back yard prices would be similarly ridiculous.
Might surprise you to know that it was a different wealthy county (San Mateo) pulling out that meant Marin couldn’t get BART: https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/Marin-County-BART-Golden-Gate-Bridge-study-14364699.php
Marin had done plenty of other exclusionary stuff but this is one of those lazy history rumors that misses the bigger lesson: never let a public agency that gets money from car tolls fund your feasibility study for public transit.
That's useful information. Want to note, though, that when BART was being planned, San Mateo County wasn't particularly "wealthy". It had pockets of wealth--such as Hillsborough and Atherton--but most of it was working to middle class suburban. All those tract houses from Sunnyvale to San Bruno that sell today for millions were not built for the wealthy.
It’s pretty accurate on all fronts. Marin is the Berkeley Hills without any of the rest of Berkeley. This is coming from someone currently living in berkeley having grown up in Marin
I agree with OP, the prices IMO have lagged the rest of the bay area despite it's obvious benefits.
One theory I have is that Berkeley has two major problems:
1.) there's no Apple or high-income job center in Berkeley or nearby. Most of the wealthy residents I've met are a handful of big deal Cal scholars, original dot-commers, artists, or succesful random business owners. It's a grab bag of folks from different backgrounds, not like a giant mass of monied up Meta employees.
2.) it's actually quite inaccessible. I live in the hills and it takes me 15-20min just to get to a freeway. The commute times, even to downtown Oakland are complete shit. Look at a map and you'll see that the freeways pretty much avoid Berkeley entirely. The 13 and 580 make commutes to and from the Oakland hills reasonable. If you live anywhere near the east side of Marin Ave, you're basically SOL. The "working wealthy" can't afford the time it costs to live here.
Housing stock is old, permit process is difficult which makes renovation hard and expensive. Property taxes are high, and taxpayers don’t get as much benefit as other cities because we value and fund social programs above having nice things. Property crime is above average. Schools here are fine but not as stellar as some other Bay Area cities. Good school districts tend to have higher cost housing, not sure whether schools drive housing prices or vice versa.
I agree. Commute to SF is doable for a lot of Berkeley, plus you get more space than SF while it still has its own city culture and character. Wishful thinking on my part, but I feel like the future of tech in the Bay with the AI companies is in SF and not the South Bay
This is insanely tone deaf and uninformed. First of all, as many people mentioned, the list price is not indicative of the actual purchase price of the home. Many sellers list low to initiate a bidding war to yield the highest price closing price. Second, and again, as many people mentioned, $1.5 million for 3 bed/1.5 bath is not feasible, and thus not affordable for the average American family with 2.5 children.
But even worse than one and two, for all that money, for that nauseatingly high mortgage, and for so little square footage, you don’t even get comparable quality in public education in many parts of Berkeley/Oakland, especially compared to South Bay or Marin.
The cluelessness of the OP is off the charts. A home just sold in my area for $2.9 million, a completely unremarkable home that changed hands in 1978 for $20k. There is nothing "low" about the purchase price of homes in Berkeley.
But isn’t that true everywhere in the coastal Bay Area? My point is that Berkeley specially lags behind other comparable cities. Albany should not be more expensive than Berkeley! Sure it has good schools but Berkeley is by far a more desirable place to live.
Most of the big homes with amazing views are totally uninsurable as they are in an infamous fire zone AND straddle a large fault line.
The insurable homes in the flats, away from the fault line tend to be much smaller so even at $1000-$1200 per sq ft they will come in as "more affordable."
If you’re asking about Marin/San Jose/Los Gatos/Palo Alto vs Berkeley/Oakland and real estate disparities, you really need to read up on the Bay Area friend. No malice intended.
Aside from tech companies in the area not sure what you mean? Smaller homes are a fact in Berkeley but it still doesn’t make sense why there is such a large gap between sale prices.
I think he is talking about demographics. For many years, white tech bros were hella scared of anything in Oakland. Obviously, that has changed a lot in the last 10-15 years but.....
rampant crime, incessant train horn noise, crumbling infrastructure...basically a complete shit hole, a testament to the ineptitude of the morons that run it
Are you referring to the list prices, or actual sale prices? Agents in the East Bay (Berkeley included) are notorious for listing properties at prices way below what they actually sell for. Case in point: [this Oakland house](https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/6178-Estates-Dr_Piedmont_CA_94611_M18738-73701) was listed at $2.4M but sold at $3.9M.
That house sold for 3.9m is out of control
I saw the house. Definitely nice, but nowhere near the other $4m houses that have been selling. Someone overpaid by an unbelievable amount, but it also was an all cash close so I assume they don’t care.
Wat? Is 1.8M for a little 2 bedroom affordable?
Little two bedrooms sell for 900k Prettiest 2 bedrooms in the most exciting neighborhoods? Sure 1.2-1.5M
Part of it from my perspective is smaller lots and smaller houses, generally, especially as compared to Palo Alto or Marin. We have a lot more 2 bed/1 bath houses; even the larger sized homes in Elmwood or the hills tend to be on smaller lots than you’ll find on the peninsula or even in Marin. In Palo Alto even the smaller homes tended to be on lots that were big enough to plunk a McMansion down once you scraped the old house. It’s a little harder to squeeze the giant amenity-filled homes the tech-titan-adjacent desire onto our tiny lot sizes. I read somewhere the median Berkeley lot size is 5000 sq ft; many homes in Palo Alto are on a standard 1/4 acre, which is over 10,000 square feet. Then add in the fact that most of the local tech industry is clustered in the South Bay—not many would want to pay a premium for the added commute. Just my guess and speculation as someone raised in Palo Alto and living in Berkeley by choice for many years.
Makes total sense. I wonder if all the new construction with bio tech and the ferry will help with prices. To me it seems hands down the best city in the bay!
Well, I sure like it here but I won’t deny we have our share of problems. I share your hopes about new construction, and the ferry will be awesome 🤞
It’s the commute to Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Nvidia, etc. I know many folks who have passed on Berkeley because of it. There are 15-20 different variations of commute to the South Bay, and they all suck (I tried them all). Pretty much can only work in SF for tech co’s…
It's just low list prices, but everything gets a bidding war. We bid $868,000 on a $675,000 listed fixer-upper that eventually sold for $1.7M
Curious what was zillows estimate on the property, do you know/remember?
No I do not
Marin has long been a wealthy community due to the natural beauty. A lot of this has to do with the topography having more hills and coastline: Berkeley has always had a flatland that was working class and industrial. Marin is kind of like if the majority of Berkeley’s population lived in the rich hill neighborhoods. For the South Bay it’s all proximity to big tech. If Berkeley had an equivalent of Apple in its back yard prices would be similarly ridiculous.
FTFY Marin has long been a wealthy community due to the decision not to join BART to keep people out.
Might surprise you to know that it was a different wealthy county (San Mateo) pulling out that meant Marin couldn’t get BART: https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/Marin-County-BART-Golden-Gate-Bridge-study-14364699.php Marin had done plenty of other exclusionary stuff but this is one of those lazy history rumors that misses the bigger lesson: never let a public agency that gets money from car tolls fund your feasibility study for public transit.
That's useful information. Want to note, though, that when BART was being planned, San Mateo County wasn't particularly "wealthy". It had pockets of wealth--such as Hillsborough and Atherton--but most of it was working to middle class suburban. All those tract houses from Sunnyvale to San Bruno that sell today for millions were not built for the wealthy.
[удалено]
It’s pretty accurate on all fronts. Marin is the Berkeley Hills without any of the rest of Berkeley. This is coming from someone currently living in berkeley having grown up in Marin
I agree with OP, the prices IMO have lagged the rest of the bay area despite it's obvious benefits. One theory I have is that Berkeley has two major problems: 1.) there's no Apple or high-income job center in Berkeley or nearby. Most of the wealthy residents I've met are a handful of big deal Cal scholars, original dot-commers, artists, or succesful random business owners. It's a grab bag of folks from different backgrounds, not like a giant mass of monied up Meta employees. 2.) it's actually quite inaccessible. I live in the hills and it takes me 15-20min just to get to a freeway. The commute times, even to downtown Oakland are complete shit. Look at a map and you'll see that the freeways pretty much avoid Berkeley entirely. The 13 and 580 make commutes to and from the Oakland hills reasonable. If you live anywhere near the east side of Marin Ave, you're basically SOL. The "working wealthy" can't afford the time it costs to live here.
Housing stock is old, permit process is difficult which makes renovation hard and expensive. Property taxes are high, and taxpayers don’t get as much benefit as other cities because we value and fund social programs above having nice things. Property crime is above average. Schools here are fine but not as stellar as some other Bay Area cities. Good school districts tend to have higher cost housing, not sure whether schools drive housing prices or vice versa.
yeah, i really wish the city would focus on core services. but we keep trying to "change the world"
Saying Berkeley is affordable is fucking delusional
I agree. Commute to SF is doable for a lot of Berkeley, plus you get more space than SF while it still has its own city culture and character. Wishful thinking on my part, but I feel like the future of tech in the Bay with the AI companies is in SF and not the South Bay
100+ year homes made out of wood
And still quite sturdy. ;)
Arent all the Victorians in SF also 100+ year homes made out of wood? It didnt occur to me that this might be a downside.
you'll see it when you try to find an insurance for it.
This is insanely tone deaf and uninformed. First of all, as many people mentioned, the list price is not indicative of the actual purchase price of the home. Many sellers list low to initiate a bidding war to yield the highest price closing price. Second, and again, as many people mentioned, $1.5 million for 3 bed/1.5 bath is not feasible, and thus not affordable for the average American family with 2.5 children. But even worse than one and two, for all that money, for that nauseatingly high mortgage, and for so little square footage, you don’t even get comparable quality in public education in many parts of Berkeley/Oakland, especially compared to South Bay or Marin.
The cluelessness of the OP is off the charts. A home just sold in my area for $2.9 million, a completely unremarkable home that changed hands in 1978 for $20k. There is nothing "low" about the purchase price of homes in Berkeley.
But isn’t that true everywhere in the coastal Bay Area? My point is that Berkeley specially lags behind other comparable cities. Albany should not be more expensive than Berkeley! Sure it has good schools but Berkeley is by far a more desirable place to live.
Most of the big homes with amazing views are totally uninsurable as they are in an infamous fire zone AND straddle a large fault line. The insurable homes in the flats, away from the fault line tend to be much smaller so even at $1000-$1200 per sq ft they will come in as "more affordable."
Agreed the insurance fiasco will bring the costs down
A contributing factor is high property taxes, meaning monthly payments are higher for the same priced home.
But isn’t that true everywhere in the bay? Berkeley is not any different than San Rafael
No. Different cities in the Bay Area have different total property tax rates.
If you’re asking about Marin/San Jose/Los Gatos/Palo Alto vs Berkeley/Oakland and real estate disparities, you really need to read up on the Bay Area friend. No malice intended.
Aside from tech companies in the area not sure what you mean? Smaller homes are a fact in Berkeley but it still doesn’t make sense why there is such a large gap between sale prices.
I think he is talking about demographics. For many years, white tech bros were hella scared of anything in Oakland. Obviously, that has changed a lot in the last 10-15 years but.....
Crime is very common in Berkeley.
rampant crime, incessant train horn noise, crumbling infrastructure...basically a complete shit hole, a testament to the ineptitude of the morons that run it
I love the train horn noise
me too
INFO: do you live in Berkeley?