Expensive McMansion for sale

[an]

[quote=spdrun]Not evaluating a primary home as compared to market conditions (i.e. rents for a similar home) is making a bad investment. Why not buy a few better investments, then rent the same home with the income?

And if you’re doing to buy, why not buy closer to the beach for the same price, which is a more attractive area?[/quote]
Because it suck living in a rental. I wouldn’t want to be living near the beach. If its not beach front, then I don’t care. I rather have ocean view on the east side of the 5.

[spdrun]

Why does living in a rental long-term “suck” other than some conditioned sense of “pride of ownership?”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]No one is saying that it’s a terrible decision (so long as costs can be supported), but that there are much better option from an investment standpoint.

Rental income of under 3%, imputed (calculated as if you were renting from yourself) or otherwise is pretty stinky even for the San Diego area. Especially if you don’t have the benefit of being able to walk to the beach and a downtown area.

To each their own, I guess.[/quote]

Thank you, spdrun. I never stated anybody who bought in CV made a “terrible decision.” Obviously, CV has had a tremendous run-up in values since the “great recession of ’08+.”

I simply stated that buyers could get a LOT more for $950K elsewhere in the county than a home with ~2000 sf situated on a barely standard (or substandard) lot.

This is akin to Silicon Valley pricing, except the home there selling for $950K would be older and smaller and the lot would be larger.

SD (CV or Sorrento Valley) cannot be compared to Silicon Valley in any way, shape or form. It doesn’t even come close. And SD doesn’t have anywhere NEAR the percentage of dedicated open space that Silicon Valley has and never will.

Besides the influence of the tech sectors HQ’d there, larger residential lots in most cities and a large percentage of dedicated open space is what made Silicon Valley so expensive to buy in, IMO.

I also stated that the “8-figure set” aren’t typically interested in econoboxes on lots within “pissing distance” of their neighbor’s house (spdrun’s apt expression). It doesn’t work that way. This set of folks usually pay all cash and buy in the most well-established choice coastal locations in the state. Before even moving in, they then often tear down or gut portions of the inside and remodel to obtain a home to better suit their needs in their chosen prime location.

(Read: LJ, RSF in SD Co and RPVE and Beverly Hills in LA Co.) Somehow, the tract developments in CV I’ve viewed so far online don’t seem to fit that bill. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Different strokes for different folks.

I’d like to know if any Pigg agent or broker can post any stats here showing the actual percentage of homebuyers in CV who took out jumbo mortgages and those who paid all cash to purchase there (the last 3 years would be helpful).

Maybe I’ll be able to look thru JTR’s site tonight and see if he’s posted anything in this regard.

[flyer]

Imo–as long as you can live where you want to live-that’s what really
matters–regardless of what anyone else prefers/does/has, etc.

Although people in every financial category generally negotiate the best deal possible when it comes to real estate, I think most people who have an 8 digit net worth–buy homes based more on where they choose to live–rather than where they might find the best deal.

That may be in CV (tract or otherwise), Manhattan, Dubai, all of the above, or somewhere else. The point is, they have the choice to do whatever they want to do.

[an]

[quote=spdrun]Why does living in a rental long-term “suck” other than some conditioned sense of “pride of ownership?”[/quote]
Because most rental condition suck. Also, there’s a huge difference between a house and a home. There are things you would do to a home that you wouldn’t want to do as a rental.

[Coronita]

[quote=spdrun]Not evaluating a primary home as compared to market conditions (i.e. rents for a similar home) is making a bad investment. Why not buy a few better investments, then rent the same home with the income?

And if you’re doing to buy, why not buy closer to the beach for the same price, which is a more attractive area?[/quote]

Bluntly put. Because there come a point in life that you realize you can’t take everything with you when you are dead and provided you arent financially ruining yourself and your heirs or screwing someone else intentionally over in the process, you can afford to indulge in things once in awhile. The only difference is what level of indulgence can one afford.

[spdrun]

Maybe my level of giveashit is just measurably lower than many people’? As long as the place is clean and in a nice location, the color of the kitchen tiles or the newness of the appliances does little for me.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flyer]Imo–as long as you can live where you want to live-that’s what really matters–regardless of what anyone else prefers/does/has, etc.

Although people in every financial category generally negotiate the best deal possible when it comes to real estate, I think most people who have an 8 digit net worth–buy homes based more on where they choose to live–rather than where they might find the best deal.

That may be in CV (tract or otherwise), Manhattan, Dubai, all of the above, or somewhere else. The point is, they have the choice to do whatever they want to do.[/quote]

flyer, your (italicized) phrase is essentially what I posted above in my most recent comment, thus I agree. The “8-figure set” shops for location first. As we all know, anything else can be “fixed,” EXCEPT lot size and shape. With the “right” location and right lot size/configuration, a 1%-er will find a way to have the home they want on it (referring to SFRs only).

Given all that SD County has to offer, I don’t see buyers in that category haggling with 10 other bidders over a tract econobox or McMansion in CV which is situated just 6-10 feet from the neighbor’s window.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]Maybe my level of giveashit is just measurably lower than many people’? As long as the place is clean and in a nice location, the color of the kitchen tiles or the newness of the appliances does little for me.[/quote]

I prefer beige, pink or turquoise Dal-tile in the bathroom to match the (well-preserved) American Standard fixtures of the era. Black seahorse tiles interspersed would be a bonus.

My mom had an electric blue American Standard bathroom in her mid-century rancher and I loved it! Lot size was nearly 13K sf!

I don’t care much about the appls, either, spdrun. Coppertone is my favorite color of (older) appliance. Downdraft gas range with covers a bonus. However, I would not use a frig more than 15 years old as they use up too much energy.

Of late, I have been fascinated by the huge amount of authentic mid-century online listings in East LA cities. The avg parcel size in most of those cities is nearly twice as big as those parcels in similar-age areas of San Diego County.

SD is really overrated on many fronts.

[CA renter]

[quote=AN][quote=spdrun]Why does living in a rental long-term “suck” other than some conditioned sense of “pride of ownership?”[/quote]
Because most rental condition suck. Also, there’s a huge difference between a house and a home. There are things you would do to a home that you wouldn’t want to do as a rental.[/quote]

[quote=spdrun]Maybe my level of giveashit is just measurably lower than many people’? As long as the place is clean and in a nice location, the color of the kitchen tiles or the newness of the appliances does little for me.[/quote]

Said the youngish (not sure how old you are), single guy with no family. 😉

Like you, I don’t have a problem with renting, but even I, CA renter, hated the constant anxiety in the back of my mind while we were renting — worrying about the landlord raising the rent or deciding to sell the house before we were ready to move, living with “repairs” that were clearly of a temporary nature, worrying that the kids would be grown and moved out before we could buy a house that we could modify specifically for our family, etc.

Ultimately, it’s better to own because you have more control over your own environment and your housing costs. The goal should also be to have a paid-off house before retirement, IMO. Can’t do that if you’re spending decades in a rental waiting for the housing market to correct.

That being said, when conditions are totally, ridiculously out of whack, it can be wise to sell and rent (that’s what we did). But even doing that isn’t a guarantee that things will work out as planned. Stuff happens.

Also, I think I can speak for the majority of families here when I say that your living conditions and housing stability become a MUCH bigger issue once you’re married with kids. It would be pretty difficult for you to understand unless you’ve moved a family of five with 30-days notice (we didn’t have to do this, but know others who did…one bubble-sitting poster (here or HBB?) had to move their family every single year while they waited, either because their rental was being foreclosed on or the owner wanted to sell, etc. Needless to say, they were ecstatic when they finally bought…didn’t wait for the exact bottom, but didn’t care at that point.

[spdrun]

My goal is to have paid off HOUSES (with an S) before retirement. Paid off houses with paying tenants able to pay for my and my family’s housing and then some anywhere in the world.

[matt]

I have the same goal. Paid off houses with an s generating cash that I can leave to my kids. I am one down and trying to decide where on the planet the next one should be.

[Jazzman]

BG, if we take ‘over-rated’ to mean ‘perceived poor value for money’, then I think it is not only SD that is over-rated. If you can buy a similar home for half the price elsewhere, the implication is there must be twice as much on offer; better schools, better homes, better jobs, better weather, better cultural facilities etc. Those are all difficult things to quantify, but most will have an inbuilt value-o-meter.

My view is that RE has been highjacked in many places and these places share things in common. They tend to be English or Asian speaking, major metropolitan conurbations, with an industry that drives it and a government that accommodates it. In other words, a culture has been built up around it. We know when it started, when it got out of hand, the consequences, and the continued disregard for it. I find it useful to view current trends through that prism. Others clearly find it irrelevant arguing that homes now represent good value ie, they are affordable as measured by income and rents. But why then do they continue to debate it unless they are a little insecure in their beliefs. If one thing has defined RE over the last decade or two, it is insecurity. The problem faced by many is they don’t have a choice. Complacency and ignorance feeds the beast. Homes remain over-valued.

The OP’s choice of home is a prime example of the home-fest culture. It clearly is not a mansion, and the +$1m price tag is incredible. It is a tract home with no individuality, no personality, packed with ‘pseudo-designer” finishes, surrounded by featureless, arid land. If you paid the asking price for that home you are fool by my accounts. Corporations are telling us how to live, what colors we should like, and even what views we should enjoy. If you are smart enough to make enough money to afford that price tag, you should be smart enough to know that it is not worth it. I feel sorry for anyone who can’t see that. Strike that …I don’t feel sorry for them at all.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Jazzman]BG, if we take ‘over-rated’ to mean ‘perceived poor value for money’, then I think it is not only SD that is over-rated. If you can buy a similar home for half the price elsewhere, the implication is there must be twice as much on offer; better schools, better homes, better jobs, better weather, better cultural facilities etc. Those are all difficult things to quantify, but most will have an inbuilt value-o-meter.

My view is that RE has been highjacked in many places and these places share things in common. They tend to be English or Asian speaking, major metropolitan conurbations, with an industry that drives it and a government that accommodates it. In other words, a culture has been built up around it. We know when it started, when it got out of hand, the consequences, and the continued disregard for it. I find it useful to view current trends through that prism. Others clearly find it irrelevant arguing that homes now represent good value ie, they are affordable as measured by income and rents. But why then do they continue to debate it unless they are a little insecure in their beliefs. If one thing has defined RE over the last decade or two, it is insecurity. The problem faced by many is they don’t have a choice. Complacency and ignorance feeds the beast. Homes remain over-valued.

The OP’s choice of home is a prime example of the home-fest culture. It clearly is not a mansion, and the +$1m price tag is incredible. It is a tract home with no individuality, no personality, packed with ‘pseudo-designer” finishes, surrounded by featureless, arid land. If you paid the asking price for that home you are fool by my accounts. Corporations are telling us how to live, what colors we should like, and even what views we should enjoy. If you are smart enough to make enough money to afford that price tag, you should be smart enough to know that it is not worth it. I feel sorry for anyone who can’t see that. Strike that …I don’t feel sorry for them at all.[/quote]

Jazzman, the OP later posted here that they feel as you do, that the price was too high for the home in the link they posted and essentially that any buyer would be “stupid” to pay anywhere near the asking price for it.

In CA coastal counties, I believe that it IS true that a certain demographic (i.e. young families, Asians, etc) ARE running up prices in their desired locations by attempting to overbid one another for almost any listing in that area which pops up on the market. Case in point: Carmel Valley (SD), as we have been discussing here. But there are other areas of the county as well which are rising rapidly in “value” due to this phenomenon. ALL of these so affected areas have exploded in population due to new construction built since 2000.

However, it is NOT true of the East LA County corridor cities (mostly situated in the San Gabriel Valley). Except for just a handful of fairly expensive cities, a very decent 3-4 bdrm/2 bath SFR with a double-car garage and central air (needed in most areas around there) has an asking price of as low as $350K (usually a short sale) to $600K, with average $450-$475K. The lot sizes there range from (a few) 6500 sf to 20,000 sf with the “average” lot size of 8000 st. There are MANY listings in this price range with 9500+ sf lots! At least a dozen of these cities’ population consists of >80% “Asian” residents (incl Chinese, Taiwanese and Vietnamese). Two cities have mostly (55-70%) Filipino residents. This region has the largest Asian population in the country (even larger than the state of Hawaii)!

The typical house there is 55+ years old. And as far as I could tell, there were very, very few houses built after 1980 (possible total remodels resulting from full or partial teardowns and spec tracts consisting of 6 or less homes). So the Asian buyer in East LA County (and Northern CA Bay Area counties as well) ACTUALLY WILL accept an older, smaller home on larger lot when nothing else is available in their chosen location. (This is excepting eastern Alameda and southern Santa Clara Counties where newer development is available for purchase.)

In SD County and Southern OC, newer residential construction abounds, so that is where the younger demographic and Asian buyers seem to flock to.

I disagree that this phenomenon is “out of hand.” It is only “out of hand” for those who are desirous of and able to but unwilling to compete in the bidding process for a home in those subdivisions which have been run-up in price over the past decade-plus (primarily due to bidding wars).

For those for whom buying tight, boxy, nondescript quarters for $850K+ to live in is a turnoff, such as myself, the situation is NOT “out of hand” because it doesn’t affect anything in my sphere.

Different strokes for different folks.

And today’s buyers DO have many choices in SD County! That was the jist of my posts here. They don’t HAVE to engage in bidding wars with several other buyers over a single listing every time something pops up on the market in ONE zip code. They can take their business to an area where where a fair offer will be considered carefully by the sellers.

As far as a buyer considering “a better home for half the price elsewhere,” one truly DOES pay for what they get in CA coastal counties, except in areas which are currently suffering from “sales frenzy,” such as CV. In the frenzy areas, price paid does not necessarily equate with “value,” IMO. The price paid there only equates to one premise … that the buyer was the “winning bidder” for the property (of several bids).

In CA coastal counties, I believe the “traditional” hallmarks of home (SFR) value, in order, are:

location
possible view
quality of construction
condition of dwelling
lot size
lot configuration
sf of dwelling
accessible to sewer
lack of or minimization of easements

“Location” includes consideration of “economic obsolescence” factors such as: busy street in front or directly behind property; unrelenting freeway noise; high power lines overhead or nearby; situated in fire or flood zone; and affected by mixed-use zoning.

I’m not sure the younger buyer cohort of today considers (or even notices) many of the above factors when shopping for a residence they may live in for a decade or more. They’re too wrapped up in kitchen and bathroom countertop finishes to be looking at that boring, “big picture” I just listed. Thus, they manage to get “roped into” $1000+ month in tax + MR + HOA dues (in addition to their mo P&I payment). I’m not saying here that they’re all “stupid” (like the OP did) but they are certainly complacent (and may not have any knowledgeable family support in place to keep them from making a homebuying mistake). And we all know that their agent just wants to make a commission as quickly and easily as possible.

[FlyerInHi]

BG, new construction do not contribute to escalating prices. New houses hold down appreciation of old houses.

[Author]

Posts