- This topic has 80 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 9 months ago by
sdrealtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 30, 2011 at 7:44 AM #18901June 30, 2011 at 11:50 PM #706879
CA renter
ParticipantIt’s still higher than its 2003 price, which means that it really isn’t that great of a deal. We were well into bubble territory by then. There are other homes that have been selling for their 2000-2002 prices (a very few have sold for even less than that).
That being said, it stood out to us, too, when it was first listed, mostly because of the large yard, and because it seemed relatively clean and well-maintained.
June 30, 2011 at 11:50 PM #707577ParticipantIt’s still higher than its 2003 price, which means that it really isn’t that great of a deal. We were well into bubble territory by then. There are other homes that have been selling for their 2000-2002 prices (a very few have sold for even less than that).
That being said, it stood out to us, too, when it was first listed, mostly because of the large yard, and because it seemed relatively clean and well-maintained.
June 30, 2011 at 11:50 PM #707729ParticipantIt’s still higher than its 2003 price, which means that it really isn’t that great of a deal. We were well into bubble territory by then. There are other homes that have been selling for their 2000-2002 prices (a very few have sold for even less than that).
That being said, it stood out to us, too, when it was first listed, mostly because of the large yard, and because it seemed relatively clean and well-maintained.
June 30, 2011 at 11:50 PM #706978ParticipantIt’s still higher than its 2003 price, which means that it really isn’t that great of a deal. We were well into bubble territory by then. There are other homes that have been selling for their 2000-2002 prices (a very few have sold for even less than that).
That being said, it stood out to us, too, when it was first listed, mostly because of the large yard, and because it seemed relatively clean and well-maintained.
June 30, 2011 at 11:50 PM #708092ParticipantIt’s still higher than its 2003 price, which means that it really isn’t that great of a deal. We were well into bubble territory by then. There are other homes that have been selling for their 2000-2002 prices (a very few have sold for even less than that).
That being said, it stood out to us, too, when it was first listed, mostly because of the large yard, and because it seemed relatively clean and well-maintained.
July 1, 2011 at 8:50 AM #708117Anonymous
GuestBased on my limited experience of selling our house of similar size in 92009 in December, and all the comps we looked at for pricing at the time, this actually looks over-priced to me.
Houses of similar size were selling in the high $400s, and from looking at the pictures, it does not appear to have any real upgrades in terms of kitchen or bathroom, etc. The lot does look pretty large, so that would drive the price up a bit, but it still seems a bit high for the area IMO.
July 1, 2011 at 8:50 AM #707602GuestBased on my limited experience of selling our house of similar size in 92009 in December, and all the comps we looked at for pricing at the time, this actually looks over-priced to me.
Houses of similar size were selling in the high $400s, and from looking at the pictures, it does not appear to have any real upgrades in terms of kitchen or bathroom, etc. The lot does look pretty large, so that would drive the price up a bit, but it still seems a bit high for the area IMO.
July 1, 2011 at 8:50 AM #707754GuestBased on my limited experience of selling our house of similar size in 92009 in December, and all the comps we looked at for pricing at the time, this actually looks over-priced to me.
Houses of similar size were selling in the high $400s, and from looking at the pictures, it does not appear to have any real upgrades in terms of kitchen or bathroom, etc. The lot does look pretty large, so that would drive the price up a bit, but it still seems a bit high for the area IMO.
July 1, 2011 at 8:50 AM #707003GuestBased on my limited experience of selling our house of similar size in 92009 in December, and all the comps we looked at for pricing at the time, this actually looks over-priced to me.
Houses of similar size were selling in the high $400s, and from looking at the pictures, it does not appear to have any real upgrades in terms of kitchen or bathroom, etc. The lot does look pretty large, so that would drive the price up a bit, but it still seems a bit high for the area IMO.
July 1, 2011 at 8:50 AM #706904GuestBased on my limited experience of selling our house of similar size in 92009 in December, and all the comps we looked at for pricing at the time, this actually looks over-priced to me.
Houses of similar size were selling in the high $400s, and from looking at the pictures, it does not appear to have any real upgrades in terms of kitchen or bathroom, etc. The lot does look pretty large, so that would drive the price up a bit, but it still seems a bit high for the area IMO.
July 1, 2011 at 9:54 AM #707759ocrenter
Participant[quote=CA renter]It’s still higher than its 2003 price, which means that it really isn’t that great of a deal. We were well into bubble territory by then. There are other homes that have been selling for their 2000-2002 prices (a very few have sold for even less than that).
That being said, it stood out to us, too, when it was first listed, mostly because of the large yard, and because it seemed relatively clean and well-maintained.[/quote]
I agree. At least $100k above 2003 pricing. $/sqft at $300/sqft!!! Way too much especially given how Carlsbad was quite overbuilt during the bubble days. also with base white square tiles in bathroom/kitchen. not a bargain at all.
July 1, 2011 at 9:54 AM #707008Participant[quote=CA renter]It’s still higher than its 2003 price, which means that it really isn’t that great of a deal. We were well into bubble territory by then. There are other homes that have been selling for their 2000-2002 prices (a very few have sold for even less than that).
That being said, it stood out to us, too, when it was first listed, mostly because of the large yard, and because it seemed relatively clean and well-maintained.[/quote]
I agree. At least $100k above 2003 pricing. $/sqft at $300/sqft!!! Way too much especially given how Carlsbad was quite overbuilt during the bubble days. also with base white square tiles in bathroom/kitchen. not a bargain at all.
July 1, 2011 at 9:54 AM #706909Participant[quote=CA renter]It’s still higher than its 2003 price, which means that it really isn’t that great of a deal. We were well into bubble territory by then. There are other homes that have been selling for their 2000-2002 prices (a very few have sold for even less than that).
That being said, it stood out to us, too, when it was first listed, mostly because of the large yard, and because it seemed relatively clean and well-maintained.[/quote]
I agree. At least $100k above 2003 pricing. $/sqft at $300/sqft!!! Way too much especially given how Carlsbad was quite overbuilt during the bubble days. also with base white square tiles in bathroom/kitchen. not a bargain at all.
July 1, 2011 at 9:54 AM #707607Participant[quote=CA renter]It’s still higher than its 2003 price, which means that it really isn’t that great of a deal. We were well into bubble territory by then. There are other homes that have been selling for their 2000-2002 prices (a very few have sold for even less than that).
That being said, it stood out to us, too, when it was first listed, mostly because of the large yard, and because it seemed relatively clean and well-maintained.[/quote]
I agree. At least $100k above 2003 pricing. $/sqft at $300/sqft!!! Way too much especially given how Carlsbad was quite overbuilt during the bubble days. also with base white square tiles in bathroom/kitchen. not a bargain at all.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.