[quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN]I don’t think anyone is disputing that there are places that only see 2003 price thus far. You don’t have to be coastal or expensive/desirable like PL to see that. I’ve shown the same thing happening in Mira Mesa and 4S Ranch. These two are far from PL in term of desirability scale, especially Mira Mesa. Yet, I’m not seeing too many that close below 2003 price as well. I’m sure there are other in land areas that are not as desirable as Point Loma that also are not seeing price much below 2003 price as well. So, I don’t think being coastal or being ultra desirable have much to do with it.[/quote]
AN, I don’t know how many tracts in MM were built in the last decade but most of 4S was built in 2003 or AFTER. Most of those housing units are/were recent “bubble-era” purchases as new construction or short sale/REO.
Lower-priced housing areas have been selling better than higher-priced housing areas since lending standards have been much tighter (approx 2007-2008).
[quote=AN]Especially since I just shown a property in Del Mar that just closed at 2000 price and it’s not a fixer, not built during the bubble, and are >$1M. I think Del Mar is very desirable. Del Mar have ~6700 household and Point Loma have ~7100 household. Both Point Loma and Del Mar have about 50 something NOD/NOT/REO. So, just because an area is ultra desirable and have low NOD/NOT/REO doesn’t mean you can’t get 2000 pricing.[/quote]
Again, that (large) DM unit you posted here is a (less-desirable) PUD heavily encumbered by an (expensive) HOA. I would surmise that what few remaining vacant lots (on which to build an SFR in DM) cost just as much as that PUD (with or without utilities), if not more.
AN, where are you getting the data that 50 properties in both 92106 and 92014 are currently in distress? And are these primarily condos or SFRs?
Del Mar has always been more dense that 92106. It is comprised of 37.5% multifamily units:
For 92014
Structure Type Number Percent California Avg. National Avg. Total housing units 6,750 100.00 % – –
1-unit, detached
4,217 62.47 % 56.35 % 60.37 %
1-unit, attached
1,106 16.39 % 7.63 % 5.68 %
2 units
148 2.19 % 2.68 % 4.29 %
3 or 4 units
138 2.04 % 5.71 % 4.72 %
5 to 9 units
277 4.10 % 5.92 % 4.66 %
10 to 19 units
277 4.10 % 5.07 % 3.99 %
20 or more units
580 8.59 % 11.98 % 8.59 %
Mobile home
7 0.10 % 4.40 % 7.49 %
Boat, RV, van, etc.
0 0.00 % 0.26 % 0.22 %
[quote=AN]In essence, what you’re really saying is, some areas, you just can’t get good darn deals, and I agree with that. I just disagree with the point that all of those areas are ultra desirable…[/quote]
To each his own . . . you still appear to be “fixated” on the notion that current average sales prices should reflect certain (arbitrary) years’ average sold comparables in EVERY area and it just isn’t so and will never be so. SD County housing stock is too diverse and each of its areas’ is “desirable” to certain subsets of buyers and owners spend a LOT more $$ rehabbing properties in historically “desirable” areas. Buyers with a lot of cash often gravitate to areas which will afford them more privacy, convenience and views (read: “custom” homes on larger-than-std lots). This type of privacy usually can’t be found in a typical tract development.[/quote]
BG,
Many of us say that prices should be at or below 2001 levels because that is when the natural peak of the RE market morphed into the credit-fueled housing bubble. ALL properties were affected by this, and the only reason certain areas haven’t been hit as hard yet is because the Federal Reserve and the government intervened when they realized that “subprime” was NOT contained. The first phase of the bubble collapse (most recent bubble buyers with absolutely no financial buffer/subprime) was allowed to play out almost entirely. But when the declines kept rolling into the more desirable areas and the “prime” mortgage market, the Fed/govt slammed on the brakes.
These declines roll from the least desirable areas into the most desirable areas, and the collapse of the housing bubble was temporarily halted by foreclosure moratoriums, artificially low interest rates, government-backed loans (at rates no private lender would be willing to accept), tax credits, “free” housing for home debtors, etc. Take away all those props, and you’d see the rest of the inventory go to pre-bubble levels very quickly.
The low prices are not caused by foreclosures — the foreclosures simply speed up the process of unwinding all the sales and prices that occurred during the bubble. The lower prices are a result of what new buyers are willing and able to pay. They are caused by the fact that nobody could have afforded the prices they paid for housing during the bubble without the constant feed of new NINJA loans. When those loans stopped, the entire pyramid (all the way to the top of the RE market — including coastal areas) began to collapse.
Prices are not determined by what sellers want, but by what NEW buyers are willing and able to spend.
