- This topic has 96 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 6 months ago by Bugs.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 27, 2007 at 11:51 AM #55235May 27, 2007 at 12:14 PM #55221wawawaParticipant
You know why HBs are dropping prices so drastically.
They want to sruvive. They desperatly need the cash flow.
It is live or die situation for them.May 27, 2007 at 12:14 PM #55237wawawaParticipantYou know why HBs are dropping prices so drastically.
They want to sruvive. They desperatly need the cash flow.
It is live or die situation for them.May 27, 2007 at 2:25 PM #55230FormerOwnerParticipantAs a side point, I would like to see a return to smaller houses and more density.
Maybe this is already starting to happen in a small gradual way. Notice that in KB’s new prices, the larger homes aren’t that much more $ than the smaller ones: 34% more s.f. only costs 13% more $.
Actually, I would be willing to pay more for a modest sized single story than a behemoth 2 story with behemoth electric bills in the summer. That extra s.f. is more of a liability than an asset. In addition to utility bills, eventually everything in a house will wear out and the bigger houses just have more stuff that needs to be maintained, repainted, and eventually replaced. And for what? I’d like it if new tracts could be zoned and designed so that the 3600 s.f. house could be built as duplex, with two 1800 s.f. townhomes on each 7000 s.f. lot, sharing the yard. They used to do that a lot back east and I think it’s great. I think there would be a market for that in California, in areas close to jobs especially. It’s better than a typical condo but more practical than an SFR. I often wonder what is going to become of all the 3000 – 4000 s.f. 2 and 3 story tract homes in the Temecula Valley long term. I’m glad I sold mine and I learned my lesson about “bigger is not always better”. Live and learn.
May 27, 2007 at 2:25 PM #55245FormerOwnerParticipantAs a side point, I would like to see a return to smaller houses and more density.
Maybe this is already starting to happen in a small gradual way. Notice that in KB’s new prices, the larger homes aren’t that much more $ than the smaller ones: 34% more s.f. only costs 13% more $.
Actually, I would be willing to pay more for a modest sized single story than a behemoth 2 story with behemoth electric bills in the summer. That extra s.f. is more of a liability than an asset. In addition to utility bills, eventually everything in a house will wear out and the bigger houses just have more stuff that needs to be maintained, repainted, and eventually replaced. And for what? I’d like it if new tracts could be zoned and designed so that the 3600 s.f. house could be built as duplex, with two 1800 s.f. townhomes on each 7000 s.f. lot, sharing the yard. They used to do that a lot back east and I think it’s great. I think there would be a market for that in California, in areas close to jobs especially. It’s better than a typical condo but more practical than an SFR. I often wonder what is going to become of all the 3000 – 4000 s.f. 2 and 3 story tract homes in the Temecula Valley long term. I’m glad I sold mine and I learned my lesson about “bigger is not always better”. Live and learn.
May 27, 2007 at 2:45 PM #55232gnParticipant“For example, the 3586 s.f. floor plan that used to sell for 650K – 700K depending on upgrades is now going for 453K”
This pricing is equivalent the prices in Temecula in what year ? 2003, 2002 ?
May 27, 2007 at 2:45 PM #55247gnParticipant“For example, the 3586 s.f. floor plan that used to sell for 650K – 700K depending on upgrades is now going for 453K”
This pricing is equivalent the prices in Temecula in what year ? 2003, 2002 ?
May 27, 2007 at 2:50 PM #55249temeculaguyParticipantMatt, I’m chomping but I’m also willing to wait for what I wan’t at the price I wan’t. I have my target price, product and location decided. The real bit chomping will happen when those three things align and I don’t think it will be years, there are more than enough indicators that show the decline accelerating with the next twelve months being very exiting for this area in particular, San Diego may have to wait longer but the inland areas will fall faster and harder.
My goal, 250-300k for 2000 sq ft. in Redhawk or Wolf Creek. Right now the cheapest is about 350-400k for new and 25-50k higher for resale. If it comes to pass sooner, then great, if later, I’ll wait. When the time comes that I can buy a house that I will keep for years and it’s sales price is between 2x and 3x my annual income, then I’m done waiting. I don’t need the market to crash in order to buy, I just think it will. I can afford it today but I want to take a 15 or 30 fixed and have it be close to what rent would be and not have the payment exceed one week’s gross pay, then I’m happy.
May 27, 2007 at 2:50 PM #55234temeculaguyParticipantMatt, I’m chomping but I’m also willing to wait for what I wan’t at the price I wan’t. I have my target price, product and location decided. The real bit chomping will happen when those three things align and I don’t think it will be years, there are more than enough indicators that show the decline accelerating with the next twelve months being very exiting for this area in particular, San Diego may have to wait longer but the inland areas will fall faster and harder.
My goal, 250-300k for 2000 sq ft. in Redhawk or Wolf Creek. Right now the cheapest is about 350-400k for new and 25-50k higher for resale. If it comes to pass sooner, then great, if later, I’ll wait. When the time comes that I can buy a house that I will keep for years and it’s sales price is between 2x and 3x my annual income, then I’m done waiting. I don’t need the market to crash in order to buy, I just think it will. I can afford it today but I want to take a 15 or 30 fixed and have it be close to what rent would be and not have the payment exceed one week’s gross pay, then I’m happy.
May 27, 2007 at 3:00 PM #55236FormerOwnerParticipantI would say 453K for 3586 s.f. in the Northern part of Temecula is 2003 pricing based on my recollection. I will try to find some examples and #’s to give a more accurate answer.
I like using sales of the same model home over time to measure price changes. The median price in a zip code can be VERY misleading due to differences in house sizes and different neighborhoods selling at different prices based on their amenities, etc. You have to compare apples to apples to know what is truly going on.
May 27, 2007 at 3:00 PM #55251FormerOwnerParticipantI would say 453K for 3586 s.f. in the Northern part of Temecula is 2003 pricing based on my recollection. I will try to find some examples and #’s to give a more accurate answer.
I like using sales of the same model home over time to measure price changes. The median price in a zip code can be VERY misleading due to differences in house sizes and different neighborhoods selling at different prices based on their amenities, etc. You have to compare apples to apples to know what is truly going on.
May 27, 2007 at 4:03 PM #55238newguyParticipantHey everyone,
I just got back from Valdemosa. I was a bit disappointed in the price for the 3586 sq ft homes. According to them, the 453K is a barebone price with no options. However, they aren’t building any with no options. So the lowest price they have on the 3586 s.f. home is 489,990. But they would also help give 15K for closing costs or if you don’t need closing costs, they would just take the 15K off the list price (so you pay lower taxes).
However, they had some new homes that are done building with a lot of options in the house (granite counter tops, fireplaces etc). Those homes are 499,990, but they’ve been sitting there unsold. They’re ready for a 30-day close.
As for the 2675 sf home, it’s really priced at 399,990. But they’re only building one home for a September move in with no options.
All in all, it was a pretty dramatic drop nevertheless. Even from 712K (originally priced with all the options) down to 500K is pretty big. And I’m sure there’s a bit of wiggle room even though they told me the prices were firm (I’m guessing 20K if you pushed for it).
May 27, 2007 at 4:03 PM #55253newguyParticipantHey everyone,
I just got back from Valdemosa. I was a bit disappointed in the price for the 3586 sq ft homes. According to them, the 453K is a barebone price with no options. However, they aren’t building any with no options. So the lowest price they have on the 3586 s.f. home is 489,990. But they would also help give 15K for closing costs or if you don’t need closing costs, they would just take the 15K off the list price (so you pay lower taxes).
However, they had some new homes that are done building with a lot of options in the house (granite counter tops, fireplaces etc). Those homes are 499,990, but they’ve been sitting there unsold. They’re ready for a 30-day close.
As for the 2675 sf home, it’s really priced at 399,990. But they’re only building one home for a September move in with no options.
All in all, it was a pretty dramatic drop nevertheless. Even from 712K (originally priced with all the options) down to 500K is pretty big. And I’m sure there’s a bit of wiggle room even though they told me the prices were firm (I’m guessing 20K if you pushed for it).
May 27, 2007 at 4:38 PM #55242waiting hawkParticipantI’ll stroll down there at 299k then run up to DeLuz with flier to tell off the land speculators to lower their price π
thx newguy for the live update. There are lowered enough for a sucker. I’m sure they will find some soon.
I remember in 2005 we went to the KB homes off Benton east of Winchester. Those houses were not impresive at all. Man there was some many people there during that time. My buddy lives across the street from there. They wanted 422k for a 1900 sqft stripped down house. I even asked if the house came with paint. They are that bad.
May 27, 2007 at 4:38 PM #55257waiting hawkParticipantI’ll stroll down there at 299k then run up to DeLuz with flier to tell off the land speculators to lower their price π
thx newguy for the live update. There are lowered enough for a sucker. I’m sure they will find some soon.
I remember in 2005 we went to the KB homes off Benton east of Winchester. Those houses were not impresive at all. Man there was some many people there during that time. My buddy lives across the street from there. They wanted 422k for a 1900 sqft stripped down house. I even asked if the house came with paint. They are that bad.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.