<p>UCLA 440 acres(Westwood)</p>
<p>vs Berkely 1900 acres (Oakland),</p>
<p>vs Stanford 2000 acres (excluding 6000 acres farm land) (Palo Alto),</p>
<p>vs Princeton 500 acres(NJ), </p>
<p>vs Yale 300 acres (New Haven),</p>
<p>vs Harvard (Cambridge) and </p>
<p>vs USC 200 acres (Compton)</p>
<p>wow, what an utterly useless post. </p>
<p>by the way: berk is not in oakland and USC is not in compton.</p>
<p>I would imagine the area around Stanford to be the most expensive...it is ridiculous really.</p>
<p>And USC is close enough to Compton and other nasty cities for it to be considered in a bad neighborhood. The same goes for Berkeley.</p>
<p>how is the area around stanford ridiculously expensive? east palo alto is literally the hood, and palo alto doesn't rival Westwood AT ALL...TRY finding a house less than 5 million dollars anywhere NEAR the westwood area- they don't exist. UCLA by far has the highest property value of any school mentioned...perhaps NYU or Columbia rival UCLA, but that's because it's in the actual city. Even then, I'm pretty sure UCLA is competitive.</p>
<p>You obviously have never seen Menlo Park.</p>
<p>certain southbay areas by stanford are quite expensive. but i don't know exactly how it compares with ucla. however, i do have to note that ucla IS surrounded by nice upperclass neighborhoods.</p>
<p>i wonder what's the property value of UCI. orange county is getting quite expensive too, and UCI has more acreage than UCLA (actually ucla has the smallest campus space of all UC's).</p>
<p>Slic, you have no real idea about what you are talking about.</p>
<p>Westwood and Palo Alto are both highly affluent areas...but I say the edge goes to Palo Alto area...and since you included East Palo Alto, you should have included Portola Valley, Menlo Park, and Atherton.</p>
<p>Westwood>>>Palo Alto</p>
<p>Single Family Home</p>
<p><a href="http://www.dqnews.com/ZIPLAT2002.shtm%5B/url%5D">http://www.dqnews.com/ZIPLAT2002.shtm</a>
Median Home Price/sqFt
Beverly Hills $1,250
Brentwood $1,049
Santa Monica $1,505
Bel Air $819
Westwood $898</p>
<p><a href="http://www.dqnews.com/ZIPSJMN.shtm%5B/url%5D">http://www.dqnews.com/ZIPSJMN.shtm</a>
Palo Alto $841
E. Palo Alto $447
Menlo Park $582
Atherton $592</p>
<p>Commercial Properties
no comparison</p>
<p>Westwood maybe 10 times higher than Palo Alto</p>
<p>Century City vs Palo Alto</p>
<p>Wow..I would say I got spanked..but here are some numbers I found on that site, and...</p>
<p>Coto, you left out a few details...one, your Palo Alto estimate is way off because the value includes East Palo Alto and not the GREATER Palo Alto area that Stanford is in, which it shouldn't include.</p>
<p>And if we are going to include the only the EXCLUSIVE areas near UCLA, you can't leave out Inglewood, East LA or others. </p>
<p>But I take it you want to compare UCLA to Stanford. So here goes...</p>
<p>I went to the site you mentioned and found different numbers:</p>
<p>Median Home Prices:</p>
<p>Atherton: $1,497,500
Palo Alto: $1,962,500
Los Altos: $1,475,000
Los Altos Hills: 2,200,000
Avg: $1,783,000</p>
<p>Beverly Hills $1,338,000
Brentwood $1,660,000
Santa Monica $1,296,000
Westwood $1,560,000
Avg: $1,463,000</p>
<p>All this does is confirm what Twain said.."there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics".</p>
<p>And Coto...10x the value? gee don't exaggerate or anything.</p>
<p>Plus, on average, the greater LA area versus the great South Bay area would result in a pummeling for LA...home prices are highest up in NorCal.</p>
<p>I gave you the 2002 Data for LA</p>
<p>This is 2004</p>
<p><a href="http://www.dqnews.com/ZIPLAT2004.shtm%5B/url%5D">http://www.dqnews.com/ZIPLAT2004.shtm</a></p>
<p>sqFt
Beverly Hills 90210 $1880
90211 $1125
90212 $1572
Westwood $1310</p>
<p>Breatwood $1500</p>
<p>Santa Monica 90401 $3299
90402 $1960
90403 $1442</p>
<p>My numbers came from the 2004-05 data on your link.</p>
<p>And the 1,880 you are referring to is SFR, Not Square Footage. SFR = Single Family Home.</p>
<p>Thus, you take the $1,880 and multiply by 1000 to get the Median price of an SFR in Beverly Hills to be $1,880,000...only $4 million short of Los Altos Hills..oh well..one day they might catch up.</p>
<p>And what do I care...I will be living near there but not in any of those homes...and I hate it in NorCal...it is way too expensive and IMO, not worth it..well Atherton, Portola and Los Altos Hills is nice..but nothing beats being close to the Pacific like LA is.</p>
<p>Berkeley is in Berkeley, silly kid. By your logic, you could say that UCSF is in Oakland...cause its "close enough."</p>
<p>exilio,</p>
<p>Agreed.</p>
<p>Honestly, I've never really liked LA. It's always seemed like a dark, artificial type of place with a lot of artificial people. And the smog, my god the smog. It's beautiful coming back home from LA and seeing the deep blue skies of northern California. But damn, there's a lot to do in LA. Great place to spend the college years. Until I visit the area around Berkeley, which I haven't done before outside of a car, LA just seems so much more attractive.</p>