LA didn't used to be that expensive I hear. It is now and that doesn't look like it will be changing anytime soon. My household income is comfortably over $100k and I still feel middle class with how expensive my mortgage is on my modest home in the valley. I know this income in most other cities would afford a much more comfortable lifestyle. Then again, it would be difficult to match my salary elsewhere in the country.

To answer your title question, the answer is YES and it was not that long ago.

This home was the very first one I clicked on in the Studio City area and is NOT atypical....note the wiped out sales history BTW. Real estate agents have been very busy wiping out sales histories over the past 3 years ago. It seems typical since there were many on this board who deny where prices were from ~1960-2000. In a thread a couple years ago here on CD there were a few posters who claimed I made up that homes in West LA were under $200K in the late 90's and they accused me of lying. I provided links to sales history proving it and they STILL refused to believe me.

Anyway, the property linked below sold at $385K in 2000 and is currently listed at $889K. Its a 3/2, 2100 sq ft. At one point it was a pretty average home in a nice neighborhood...well affordable to anyone with a upper middle class income...engineers, architects, or even a dual income family working semi skilled blue collar jobs. That is simply the way it was in Los Angeles up until 2001 or so, with a slight hiccup in the 70's due to inflationary pressures and another one in the late 80's/early 90's.

As to how people afford homes right now? In general, they don't. Home sales are currently at a multi year low and most people are not out buying. As you've seen yourself, renting is quite comfortable. No reason to buy at the moment.

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Studio-City...public-records

This one in Burbank is even better:

Sold as an upgraded home in 1991 for $280K. Listed now for $635K, in very dated condition. Not one dime spent in 22 years.

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Burbank/241...5/home/5393207

Keep in mind that 1991 was the peak of the previous bubble and that these homes likely would have sold for $320k and $200-220K in 1994-1997.

Yep.

Zillow isn't that accurate.

Nope. They bought before the most recent housing bubble. Some of us even bought before the previous housing bubble of the late 1980s.

In the early 70s my wife's grandmother worked for the post office, was a single mother of 5 and bought a house in Pasadena for $35,000. That same house sold for $950,000 a few years ago. Both my wife and I make good money have no kids and couldn't afford to buy that same house. Some would say that's progress.

Studio City is one of the most expensive Valley cities. If you want to commute from Palmdale, you could afford a huge, new house up there. Location, location...

I have an Aunt and Uncle who bought a home in South Pasadena in 1969 for $40K. They sold it in 1990, for 385K and thought they did well. That same house resold in 2011 for over 1 million dollars.

I would agree that a typical "Brady Bunch" home was affordable up until around 2000-2001. I know two brothers that bought homes in 1995 and 1996, in nice areas of Burbank. These are typical 3 bed/2 bathroom homes. They paid around 170K for them, those years.

I have another friend who bought a small home (1,375 sq ft, 3 bed, 2 bath) in Diamond Bar, in 1991, for $205K. He sold it in 2011, for $525K and relocated to Colorado.

In 1970 my family's brand new Lakewood home cost $30k. For $33k you could get a second story and a pool.