Comment on 'Starter homes' cost at least $1 million in over 200 U.S. cities, Zillow data finds
taiyang@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Well… define starter home. I got a starter for about half that in LA but I have a shared wall townhome. Not great, but if we’re talking no shared walls and a yard, ya I can see that costing more… Except I also saw those for about this price, only with like… 600sq ft? Pick you battles, but those aren’t a million even in the city.
Now, maybe the 200 cities are specific neighborhoods, like how Santa Monica isn’t technically Los Angeles since it’s got it’s own city government. Same with Beverly Hills, Bel Air, etc. You sure as hell ain’t getting a place for 1 mil there, even if it’s a small “starter home.”
TheLowestStone@lemmy.world 1 week ago
All of your question are answered right at the beginning of the article:
“Zillow defines “cities” as distinct housing markets, which can include large suburbs, towns or boroughs within major metro areas. “Starter homes” are defined as properties in the bottom third of home values within a given market. That means these aren’t luxury listings — they’re the least expensive homes available in each city.”
taiyang@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Gotcha. So yes, it’s misleading headline, mostly for the first part since you can probably pull up 200 “cities” where you’d be nuts to find your first home. You aren’t getting your first home in Malibu, that’s just silly.
zod000@lemmy.ml 6 days ago
I don’t think it’s not misleading, you are just thinking purely of large cities or full metros. Most good sized metros are a combination of a dozen or more cities.