Avaron at Del Sur Slashes Prices

[sdrealtor]

Sorry but that’s not 2000 pricing. Year 2000 pricing for homes like that on 1/4 acre tract lots would be between 600K and 700K. The Silver Gum and Tea Tree homes are much bigger homes in a superior neighborhood where everyone has got at least 1/2 an acre.

To draw a parallel to NCC, thats like comparing nearly new 4500 sq ft La Costa Oaks homes on 1/4 acre lots that currently sell for the low $1M while late 1990’s home in The Ranch where everyone has at least a 1/2 acre that still would sell in above $1.5M.

[temeculaguy]

It’s not my fault, oc posted the comps, how was I supposed to know they weren’t in that tract? While we are on the topic, 2000 pricing is a little optimistic, what would 2003 pricing be? or 2001? I have an itchy trigger finger, i say anything sub 2003 is good, the closer to 2001 the better but sub 03 is where I think it lands. Regardless of how nice it is, it was nice then too, if some areas never get below or to 2003 pricing during cycles but enjoy the same upward percentage, over time they get too far out of whack. If home x is worth double home y in 1985 and 1995 and 2003, it will end up worth double in 2010, not triple and not the same, the market ripples will put it at it’s percentage higher eventually.

[temeculaguy]

It’s not my fault, oc posted the comps, how was I supposed to know they weren’t in that tract? While we are on the topic, 2000 pricing is a little optimistic, what would 2003 pricing be? or 2001? I have an itchy trigger finger, i say anything sub 2003 is good, the closer to 2001 the better but sub 03 is where I think it lands. Regardless of how nice it is, it was nice then too, if some areas never get below or to 2003 pricing during cycles but enjoy the same upward percentage, over time they get too far out of whack. If home x is worth double home y in 1985 and 1995 and 2003, it will end up worth double in 2010, not triple and not the same, the market ripples will put it at it’s percentage higher eventually.

[temeculaguy]

It’s not my fault, oc posted the comps, how was I supposed to know they weren’t in that tract? While we are on the topic, 2000 pricing is a little optimistic, what would 2003 pricing be? or 2001? I have an itchy trigger finger, i say anything sub 2003 is good, the closer to 2001 the better but sub 03 is where I think it lands. Regardless of how nice it is, it was nice then too, if some areas never get below or to 2003 pricing during cycles but enjoy the same upward percentage, over time they get too far out of whack. If home x is worth double home y in 1985 and 1995 and 2003, it will end up worth double in 2010, not triple and not the same, the market ripples will put it at it’s percentage higher eventually.

[temeculaguy]

It’s not my fault, oc posted the comps, how was I supposed to know they weren’t in that tract? While we are on the topic, 2000 pricing is a little optimistic, what would 2003 pricing be? or 2001? I have an itchy trigger finger, i say anything sub 2003 is good, the closer to 2001 the better but sub 03 is where I think it lands. Regardless of how nice it is, it was nice then too, if some areas never get below or to 2003 pricing during cycles but enjoy the same upward percentage, over time they get too far out of whack. If home x is worth double home y in 1985 and 1995 and 2003, it will end up worth double in 2010, not triple and not the same, the market ripples will put it at it’s percentage higher eventually.

[temeculaguy]

It’s not my fault, oc posted the comps, how was I supposed to know they weren’t in that tract? While we are on the topic, 2000 pricing is a little optimistic, what would 2003 pricing be? or 2001? I have an itchy trigger finger, i say anything sub 2003 is good, the closer to 2001 the better but sub 03 is where I think it lands. Regardless of how nice it is, it was nice then too, if some areas never get below or to 2003 pricing during cycles but enjoy the same upward percentage, over time they get too far out of whack. If home x is worth double home y in 1985 and 1995 and 2003, it will end up worth double in 2010, not triple and not the same, the market ripples will put it at it’s percentage higher eventually.

[ocrenter]

uh, 1/4 acre is 10k lots, did a few measurements of avaron, none of them are 10k lots.

avaron homes average more like 1/3 acre to 2/5 acre lots.

as for the homes in the Silver Gum/Tea Tree subdivision, we are looking at mostly 2/5 acre with a few near 1/2 acre lots.

the Rising River home is basically fully done, just need to spend say $10k to $20k to get new appliances in. where as the Silver Gum/Tea Tree homes were brand new, some of the cheaper ones probably without upgrades.

to say Rising River is not at 2000 pricing is splitting hairs.

[ocrenter]

uh, 1/4 acre is 10k lots, did a few measurements of avaron, none of them are 10k lots.

avaron homes average more like 1/3 acre to 2/5 acre lots.

as for the homes in the Silver Gum/Tea Tree subdivision, we are looking at mostly 2/5 acre with a few near 1/2 acre lots.

the Rising River home is basically fully done, just need to spend say $10k to $20k to get new appliances in. where as the Silver Gum/Tea Tree homes were brand new, some of the cheaper ones probably without upgrades.

to say Rising River is not at 2000 pricing is splitting hairs.

[ocrenter]

uh, 1/4 acre is 10k lots, did a few measurements of avaron, none of them are 10k lots.

avaron homes average more like 1/3 acre to 2/5 acre lots.

as for the homes in the Silver Gum/Tea Tree subdivision, we are looking at mostly 2/5 acre with a few near 1/2 acre lots.

the Rising River home is basically fully done, just need to spend say $10k to $20k to get new appliances in. where as the Silver Gum/Tea Tree homes were brand new, some of the cheaper ones probably without upgrades.

to say Rising River is not at 2000 pricing is splitting hairs.

[ocrenter]

uh, 1/4 acre is 10k lots, did a few measurements of avaron, none of them are 10k lots.

avaron homes average more like 1/3 acre to 2/5 acre lots.

as for the homes in the Silver Gum/Tea Tree subdivision, we are looking at mostly 2/5 acre with a few near 1/2 acre lots.

the Rising River home is basically fully done, just need to spend say $10k to $20k to get new appliances in. where as the Silver Gum/Tea Tree homes were brand new, some of the cheaper ones probably without upgrades.

to say Rising River is not at 2000 pricing is splitting hairs.

[ocrenter]

uh, 1/4 acre is 10k lots, did a few measurements of avaron, none of them are 10k lots.

avaron homes average more like 1/3 acre to 2/5 acre lots.

as for the homes in the Silver Gum/Tea Tree subdivision, we are looking at mostly 2/5 acre with a few near 1/2 acre lots.

the Rising River home is basically fully done, just need to spend say $10k to $20k to get new appliances in. where as the Silver Gum/Tea Tree homes were brand new, some of the cheaper ones probably without upgrades.

to say Rising River is not at 2000 pricing is splitting hairs.

[an]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=mdk]the comp killer recently closed

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-090031679-15595_S_Rising_River_Pl_San_Diego_CA_92127

-mdk[/quote]

15595 S Rising River Pl
–4,464sqft
–listing price: $899,900
–sold price: $882,500
–price/sqft: $198

just re-read some of the comments back in ’08 about price drops down to $1.1 million. I say $882k is pretty much bottom and at 2000 pricing. not saying everyone can get the price, but this once again shows that Eugene and I were not the only two that got homes at 2000 pricing:

17257 Silver Gum Way, San Diego, CA 92127
–5 beds, 5.5 baths, 5,128 sq ft
–12/05/2000: $815,500

17269 Silver Gum Way, San Diego, CA 92127
–5 beds, 5.5 baths, 5,450 sq ft
–11/09/2000: $946,000

9446 Tea Tree Ln, San Diego, CA 92127
–5 beds, 5.5 baths, 4,790 sq ft
–11/14/2000: $894,500

9433 Tea Tree Ln, San Diego, CA 92127
–5 beds, 5.5 baths, 5,128 sq ft
–11/28/2000: $817,000[/quote]

Although 15595 S Rising River Pl is definitely a new comp killer, I wouldn’t call it 2000 price just yet. Quite frankly, I don’t think it’s that close to 2000 price. Here are the reason why I think it’s closer to 2003 price than 2000 price:

(my assumptions are 2006 & 2007 price in these high end homes didn’t drop very much and there’s a bigger rise between 2000-2003 than the drop between 2006-2007)

http://www.sdlookup.com/Property-BAD8279C-15132_Palomino_Valley_Pl_San_Diego_CA_92127
09/27/2006-$1,275,000
10/03/2005-$1,300,000
09/18/2003-$751,830
(as you can see, even if it drops 10% between 2006 and 2007, this Palomino house is w/in 5% of the 15595 S Rising River Pl in 2007. Yet, even in 2003, it was way down at $751k. If I have to guess, its 2000 would be around $600k if it was build in 2000, assuming price increased about 20% between 2000 and 2003. So, a more realistic 2000 price for 15595 S Rising River Pl would be around $630k, assuming 15595 S Rising River Pl have 5% premium compare to 15132 Palomino Valley Pl)

Using your data point:
9446 Tea Tree Ln
San Diego, CA 92127

and adding another data point of near by house:
17235 Tallow Tree Ln
San Diego, CA 92127
07/19/2007 $1,700,000
07/10/2002 $980,000
11/29/2001 $981,985

as you can tell, these 2 have the same floor plan. 17235 Tallow Tree Ln sold for 10% more than 9446 Tea Tree Ln. Assuming these floor plan have no appreciation between 2000 and 2001, we can assume that 17235 Tallow Tree Ln have a 10% premium compare to 9446 Tea Tree Ln. So, removing the 10% premium, we can safely assume 9446 Tea Tree Ln would have sold for ~$1.5M. Which is a 25% premium compare to 15595 S Rising River Pl, which sold for $1.2M in 2007. Taking that same 25% premium and apply it back to the 2000 price of 9446 Tea Tree Ln, we should be around $670k.

So, based on those two data points, I think 15595 S Rising River Pl 2000 price would be around $630k-$670k. $882k is still well above that range and is a lot closer to late 2003 price.

[an]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=mdk]the comp killer recently closed

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-090031679-15595_S_Rising_River_Pl_San_Diego_CA_92127

-mdk[/quote]

15595 S Rising River Pl
–4,464sqft
–listing price: $899,900
–sold price: $882,500
–price/sqft: $198

just re-read some of the comments back in ’08 about price drops down to $1.1 million. I say $882k is pretty much bottom and at 2000 pricing. not saying everyone can get the price, but this once again shows that Eugene and I were not the only two that got homes at 2000 pricing:

17257 Silver Gum Way, San Diego, CA 92127
–5 beds, 5.5 baths, 5,128 sq ft
–12/05/2000: $815,500

17269 Silver Gum Way, San Diego, CA 92127
–5 beds, 5.5 baths, 5,450 sq ft
–11/09/2000: $946,000

9446 Tea Tree Ln, San Diego, CA 92127
–5 beds, 5.5 baths, 4,790 sq ft
–11/14/2000: $894,500

9433 Tea Tree Ln, San Diego, CA 92127
–5 beds, 5.5 baths, 5,128 sq ft
–11/28/2000: $817,000[/quote]

Although 15595 S Rising River Pl is definitely a new comp killer, I wouldn’t call it 2000 price just yet. Quite frankly, I don’t think it’s that close to 2000 price. Here are the reason why I think it’s closer to 2003 price than 2000 price:

(my assumptions are 2006 & 2007 price in these high end homes didn’t drop very much and there’s a bigger rise between 2000-2003 than the drop between 2006-2007)

http://www.sdlookup.com/Property-BAD8279C-15132_Palomino_Valley_Pl_San_Diego_CA_92127
09/27/2006-$1,275,000
10/03/2005-$1,300,000
09/18/2003-$751,830
(as you can see, even if it drops 10% between 2006 and 2007, this Palomino house is w/in 5% of the 15595 S Rising River Pl in 2007. Yet, even in 2003, it was way down at $751k. If I have to guess, its 2000 would be around $600k if it was build in 2000, assuming price increased about 20% between 2000 and 2003. So, a more realistic 2000 price for 15595 S Rising River Pl would be around $630k, assuming 15595 S Rising River Pl have 5% premium compare to 15132 Palomino Valley Pl)

Using your data point:
9446 Tea Tree Ln
San Diego, CA 92127

and adding another data point of near by house:
17235 Tallow Tree Ln
San Diego, CA 92127
07/19/2007 $1,700,000
07/10/2002 $980,000
11/29/2001 $981,985

as you can tell, these 2 have the same floor plan. 17235 Tallow Tree Ln sold for 10% more than 9446 Tea Tree Ln. Assuming these floor plan have no appreciation between 2000 and 2001, we can assume that 17235 Tallow Tree Ln have a 10% premium compare to 9446 Tea Tree Ln. So, removing the 10% premium, we can safely assume 9446 Tea Tree Ln would have sold for ~$1.5M. Which is a 25% premium compare to 15595 S Rising River Pl, which sold for $1.2M in 2007. Taking that same 25% premium and apply it back to the 2000 price of 9446 Tea Tree Ln, we should be around $670k.

So, based on those two data points, I think 15595 S Rising River Pl 2000 price would be around $630k-$670k. $882k is still well above that range and is a lot closer to late 2003 price.

[an]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=mdk]the comp killer recently closed

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-090031679-15595_S_Rising_River_Pl_San_Diego_CA_92127

-mdk[/quote]

15595 S Rising River Pl
–4,464sqft
–listing price: $899,900
–sold price: $882,500
–price/sqft: $198

just re-read some of the comments back in ’08 about price drops down to $1.1 million. I say $882k is pretty much bottom and at 2000 pricing. not saying everyone can get the price, but this once again shows that Eugene and I were not the only two that got homes at 2000 pricing:

17257 Silver Gum Way, San Diego, CA 92127
–5 beds, 5.5 baths, 5,128 sq ft
–12/05/2000: $815,500

17269 Silver Gum Way, San Diego, CA 92127
–5 beds, 5.5 baths, 5,450 sq ft
–11/09/2000: $946,000

9446 Tea Tree Ln, San Diego, CA 92127
–5 beds, 5.5 baths, 4,790 sq ft
–11/14/2000: $894,500

9433 Tea Tree Ln, San Diego, CA 92127
–5 beds, 5.5 baths, 5,128 sq ft
–11/28/2000: $817,000[/quote]

Although 15595 S Rising River Pl is definitely a new comp killer, I wouldn’t call it 2000 price just yet. Quite frankly, I don’t think it’s that close to 2000 price. Here are the reason why I think it’s closer to 2003 price than 2000 price:

(my assumptions are 2006 & 2007 price in these high end homes didn’t drop very much and there’s a bigger rise between 2000-2003 than the drop between 2006-2007)

http://www.sdlookup.com/Property-BAD8279C-15132_Palomino_Valley_Pl_San_Diego_CA_92127
09/27/2006-$1,275,000
10/03/2005-$1,300,000
09/18/2003-$751,830
(as you can see, even if it drops 10% between 2006 and 2007, this Palomino house is w/in 5% of the 15595 S Rising River Pl in 2007. Yet, even in 2003, it was way down at $751k. If I have to guess, its 2000 would be around $600k if it was build in 2000, assuming price increased about 20% between 2000 and 2003. So, a more realistic 2000 price for 15595 S Rising River Pl would be around $630k, assuming 15595 S Rising River Pl have 5% premium compare to 15132 Palomino Valley Pl)

Using your data point:
9446 Tea Tree Ln
San Diego, CA 92127

and adding another data point of near by house:
17235 Tallow Tree Ln
San Diego, CA 92127
07/19/2007 $1,700,000
07/10/2002 $980,000
11/29/2001 $981,985

as you can tell, these 2 have the same floor plan. 17235 Tallow Tree Ln sold for 10% more than 9446 Tea Tree Ln. Assuming these floor plan have no appreciation between 2000 and 2001, we can assume that 17235 Tallow Tree Ln have a 10% premium compare to 9446 Tea Tree Ln. So, removing the 10% premium, we can safely assume 9446 Tea Tree Ln would have sold for ~$1.5M. Which is a 25% premium compare to 15595 S Rising River Pl, which sold for $1.2M in 2007. Taking that same 25% premium and apply it back to the 2000 price of 9446 Tea Tree Ln, we should be around $670k.

So, based on those two data points, I think 15595 S Rising River Pl 2000 price would be around $630k-$670k. $882k is still well above that range and is a lot closer to late 2003 price.

[an]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=mdk]the comp killer recently closed

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-090031679-15595_S_Rising_River_Pl_San_Diego_CA_92127

-mdk[/quote]

15595 S Rising River Pl
–4,464sqft
–listing price: $899,900
–sold price: $882,500
–price/sqft: $198

just re-read some of the comments back in ’08 about price drops down to $1.1 million. I say $882k is pretty much bottom and at 2000 pricing. not saying everyone can get the price, but this once again shows that Eugene and I were not the only two that got homes at 2000 pricing:

17257 Silver Gum Way, San Diego, CA 92127
–5 beds, 5.5 baths, 5,128 sq ft
–12/05/2000: $815,500

17269 Silver Gum Way, San Diego, CA 92127
–5 beds, 5.5 baths, 5,450 sq ft
–11/09/2000: $946,000

9446 Tea Tree Ln, San Diego, CA 92127
–5 beds, 5.5 baths, 4,790 sq ft
–11/14/2000: $894,500

9433 Tea Tree Ln, San Diego, CA 92127
–5 beds, 5.5 baths, 5,128 sq ft
–11/28/2000: $817,000[/quote]

Although 15595 S Rising River Pl is definitely a new comp killer, I wouldn’t call it 2000 price just yet. Quite frankly, I don’t think it’s that close to 2000 price. Here are the reason why I think it’s closer to 2003 price than 2000 price:

(my assumptions are 2006 & 2007 price in these high end homes didn’t drop very much and there’s a bigger rise between 2000-2003 than the drop between 2006-2007)

http://www.sdlookup.com/Property-BAD8279C-15132_Palomino_Valley_Pl_San_Diego_CA_92127
09/27/2006-$1,275,000
10/03/2005-$1,300,000
09/18/2003-$751,830
(as you can see, even if it drops 10% between 2006 and 2007, this Palomino house is w/in 5% of the 15595 S Rising River Pl in 2007. Yet, even in 2003, it was way down at $751k. If I have to guess, its 2000 would be around $600k if it was build in 2000, assuming price increased about 20% between 2000 and 2003. So, a more realistic 2000 price for 15595 S Rising River Pl would be around $630k, assuming 15595 S Rising River Pl have 5% premium compare to 15132 Palomino Valley Pl)

Using your data point:
9446 Tea Tree Ln
San Diego, CA 92127

and adding another data point of near by house:
17235 Tallow Tree Ln
San Diego, CA 92127
07/19/2007 $1,700,000
07/10/2002 $980,000
11/29/2001 $981,985

as you can tell, these 2 have the same floor plan. 17235 Tallow Tree Ln sold for 10% more than 9446 Tea Tree Ln. Assuming these floor plan have no appreciation between 2000 and 2001, we can assume that 17235 Tallow Tree Ln have a 10% premium compare to 9446 Tea Tree Ln. So, removing the 10% premium, we can safely assume 9446 Tea Tree Ln would have sold for ~$1.5M. Which is a 25% premium compare to 15595 S Rising River Pl, which sold for $1.2M in 2007. Taking that same 25% premium and apply it back to the 2000 price of 9446 Tea Tree Ln, we should be around $670k.

So, based on those two data points, I think 15595 S Rising River Pl 2000 price would be around $630k-$670k. $882k is still well above that range and is a lot closer to late 2003 price.

[Author]

Posts