There is no \u201cbest place\u201d to buy a home.<\/p>\n
But the number crunchers at WalletHub put some math behind what\u2019s largely an emotional debate, ranking 300 U.S. cities<\/a> on their housing market\u2019s real estate qualities (80% of the final score) and the community\u2019s economics, such as affordability and jobs (the remaining 20%).<\/p>\n My trusty spreadsheet<\/a> extracted the grades for the 52 Southern California cities in the report to see the winners and losers. Remember, these are WalletHub\u2019s calculations involving 17 metrics. Like any \u201cbest places\u201d scorecard, they\u2019re more fodder for thought than major scientific proof.<\/p>\n Still, who doesn\u2019t like a good real estate debate? And according to these calculations, Southern California\u2019s best is a city that ranks high on many \u201cbest places\u201d lists \u2013 Irvine.<\/p>\n How? The Orange County city was ranked as having the region\u2019s best real estate conditions and was scored sixth-best in local economics. And by the way, Irvine was 10th-best on WalletHub\u2019s overall national ranking.<\/p>\n Top grades<\/p>\n Note that nine of the remaining members of Southern California\u2019s top 10 are from the Inland Empire or San Diego County. In order of local ranking \u2026<\/p>\n \u2013 Ontario: No. 2 for real estate, No. 5 in economics and No. 34 nationally.<\/p>\n \u2013 Murrieta: No. 6 for real estate, No. 4 in economics and No. 58 nationally.<\/p>\n \u2013 San Diego: No. 4 for real estate, No. 23 in economics and No. 70 nationally.<\/p>\n \u2013 Chula Vista: No. 5 for real estate, No. 15 in economics and No. 75 nationally.<\/p>\n \u2013 Vista: No. 3 for real estate, No. 32 in economics and No. 76 nationally.<\/p>\n \u2013 Carlsbad: No. 7 for real estate, No. 24 in economics and No. 85 nationally.<\/p>\n \u2013 Rancho Cucamonga: No. 16 for real estate, No. 8 in economics and No. 91 nationally.<\/p>\n \u2013 Escondido: No. 8 for real estate, No. 30 in economics and No. 100 nationally.<\/p>\n \u2013 Garden Grove: No. 10 for real estate, No. 31 in economics and No. 112 nationally.<\/p>\n The bottom 10<\/p>\n Palmdale\u2019s housing market got Southern California\u2019s worst grade.<\/p>\n The Los Angeles County city ranked last among the 52 cities for real estate but scored 21st for local economics. And nationally, its overall grade ranks ninth-worst among 300 cities.<\/p>\n Note that eight other L.A. cities were also in the bottom 10. Here\u2019s the lowly ranked, from second-lowest score through 10th-lowest:<\/p>\n \u2013 Lancaster: No. 51 of 52 local cities for real estate qualities, No. 20 in economics and No. 291 of 300 nationally.<\/p>\n \u2013 Victorville: No. 50 for real estate, No. 1 in economics and No. 277 nationally.<\/p>\n \u2013 Inglewood: No. 45 for real estate, No. 52 in economics and No. 267 nationally.<\/p>\n \u2013 Compton: No. 47 for real estate, No. 44 in economics and No. 260 nationally.<\/p>\n \u2013 Santa Clarita: No. 49 for real estate, No. 12 in economics and No. 256 nationally.<\/p>\n \u2013 Downey: No. 41 for real estate, No. 39 in economics and No. 239 nationally.<\/p>\n \u2013 South Gate: No. 39 for real estate, No. 43 in economics and No. 238 nationally.<\/p>\n \u2013 Los Angeles: No. 33 for real estate, No. 50 in economics and No. 237 nationally.<\/p>\n \u2013 San Bernardino: No. 46 for real estate, No. 13 in economics and No. 229 nationally.<\/p>\n Jonathan Lansner is the business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at jlansner@scng.com<\/a><\/p>\n