patrick.net

LA is a lot like the Bay area in terms of home prices. The first places to decline hard after the 2006/07 peak were the rough neighborhoods and the outlying places. Then slowly prices in nice older areas with commutes started to fall.
For Los Angeles, this meant much of the SFV, and places like West Covina, Whittier, Hacienda Heights, and Lakewood...all places with 45 minute to 1 hour rush hour commutes to DTLA.

Yet safe, trendy, or gentrifying neighborhoods within a 45 minute or less commute to DTLA or the Westside remained stubbornly high.

This is starting to change. The first change was in Woodland Hills/Tarzana. Then Encino. Then Sherman Oaks. The one factor those areas share is that they are close in distance but far in drive from the Westside. One factor they also share is subpar schools(except WH which is furthest drive).

As such, the areas with good schools and a close rush hour drive to job centers still stayed in a bubble. My understanding is that this is also the case with the SF Bay Area.

No longer.

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Burbank/1900-N-Screenland-Dr-91505/home/5318080

I do realize this was an all cash sale, and that the buyer is almost guaranteed to be a flipper who is going to chuck this back on the market at $500K or so. Nonetheless, thats one heavy fall from the peak, and theoretically dropped the pricing back into the range where a middle class family...say a family of 4 with a $90K annual income...could afford to buy it. In a safe neighborhood with good schools and a reasonable commute to job centers.