North County Coastal Market-Why so sticky?

[sdduuuude]

So, sdr, I’m hoping you can clarify something for me.

Lets start by breaking your market up into price segments. These are prices as of the peak – say 2005 or 2006, whenever you say the peak is.

Lets say at the peak, price ranges were:
500K – 750K,
750 – 1M,
1.25 – 1.5,
1.5M – 2M, and
2M – 3M.

(Anything higher doesn’t register with me and is such a small number of unique sales, it’s hard to quantify.)

To what levels would you say those ranges have shifted today? And in 2 years, where do you think they’ll be ?

Ranges don’t have to stay the same size. i.e. 1M can move to 900K, while 1.5M can move to 1.2M.

Anyone can play, by the way. Lets keep it to only sdr’s zip codes for now.

Thanks. I’ll have follow-on Q’s for you after this.

[jameswenn]

[quote=SD Realtor]”
JohnAlt you don’t have to buy anything. Your own statement confirms what I said. San Diego as a whole simply is an expensive place to live. It costs more here and it will always cost more here. Conversely more people will be priced out of housing. In fact because of the climate more people will indeed spend more. It may not be important to you but it is to them. They will live coastal and those that don’t wanna spend that money will live inland or in condos.

That is the point of the entire post to begin with. There is only a finite coastal space. Those that want it pay. Those that hope for it to go down to their own level of affordability may get lucky but probably will not[/quote]

It’s all relative. There are people like myself who moved down from Los Angeles over the past few years because San Diego is cheap compared to LA. I can consider living on the coast in SD, while in LA that’s reserved for people who don’t ever have to work.

[jameswenn]

[quote=SD Realtor]”
JohnAlt you don’t have to buy anything. Your own statement confirms what I said. San Diego as a whole simply is an expensive place to live. It costs more here and it will always cost more here. Conversely more people will be priced out of housing. In fact because of the climate more people will indeed spend more. It may not be important to you but it is to them. They will live coastal and those that don’t wanna spend that money will live inland or in condos.

That is the point of the entire post to begin with. There is only a finite coastal space. Those that want it pay. Those that hope for it to go down to their own level of affordability may get lucky but probably will not[/quote]

It’s all relative. There are people like myself who moved down from Los Angeles over the past few years because San Diego is cheap compared to LA. I can consider living on the coast in SD, while in LA that’s reserved for people who don’t ever have to work.

[jameswenn]

[quote=SD Realtor]”
JohnAlt you don’t have to buy anything. Your own statement confirms what I said. San Diego as a whole simply is an expensive place to live. It costs more here and it will always cost more here. Conversely more people will be priced out of housing. In fact because of the climate more people will indeed spend more. It may not be important to you but it is to them. They will live coastal and those that don’t wanna spend that money will live inland or in condos.

That is the point of the entire post to begin with. There is only a finite coastal space. Those that want it pay. Those that hope for it to go down to their own level of affordability may get lucky but probably will not[/quote]

It’s all relative. There are people like myself who moved down from Los Angeles over the past few years because San Diego is cheap compared to LA. I can consider living on the coast in SD, while in LA that’s reserved for people who don’t ever have to work.

[jameswenn]

[quote=SD Realtor]”
JohnAlt you don’t have to buy anything. Your own statement confirms what I said. San Diego as a whole simply is an expensive place to live. It costs more here and it will always cost more here. Conversely more people will be priced out of housing. In fact because of the climate more people will indeed spend more. It may not be important to you but it is to them. They will live coastal and those that don’t wanna spend that money will live inland or in condos.

That is the point of the entire post to begin with. There is only a finite coastal space. Those that want it pay. Those that hope for it to go down to their own level of affordability may get lucky but probably will not[/quote]

It’s all relative. There are people like myself who moved down from Los Angeles over the past few years because San Diego is cheap compared to LA. I can consider living on the coast in SD, while in LA that’s reserved for people who don’t ever have to work.

[jameswenn]

[quote=SD Realtor]”
JohnAlt you don’t have to buy anything. Your own statement confirms what I said. San Diego as a whole simply is an expensive place to live. It costs more here and it will always cost more here. Conversely more people will be priced out of housing. In fact because of the climate more people will indeed spend more. It may not be important to you but it is to them. They will live coastal and those that don’t wanna spend that money will live inland or in condos.

That is the point of the entire post to begin with. There is only a finite coastal space. Those that want it pay. Those that hope for it to go down to their own level of affordability may get lucky but probably will not[/quote]

It’s all relative. There are people like myself who moved down from Los Angeles over the past few years because San Diego is cheap compared to LA. I can consider living on the coast in SD, while in LA that’s reserved for people who don’t ever have to work.

[an]

Here’s my guess:
500k-750k -> 350k-650k
750k-1M -> 650k-850k
1M-1.5M -> 850k-1.1M
1.5M-2M -> 1.1M-1.4M
2M-3M -> 1.4M-1.8M

BTW, this is purely a guess, no data to back it up.

[an]

Here’s my guess:
500k-750k -> 350k-650k
750k-1M -> 650k-850k
1M-1.5M -> 850k-1.1M
1.5M-2M -> 1.1M-1.4M
2M-3M -> 1.4M-1.8M

BTW, this is purely a guess, no data to back it up.

[an]

Here’s my guess:
500k-750k -> 350k-650k
750k-1M -> 650k-850k
1M-1.5M -> 850k-1.1M
1.5M-2M -> 1.1M-1.4M
2M-3M -> 1.4M-1.8M

BTW, this is purely a guess, no data to back it up.

[an]

Here’s my guess:
500k-750k -> 350k-650k
750k-1M -> 650k-850k
1M-1.5M -> 850k-1.1M
1.5M-2M -> 1.1M-1.4M
2M-3M -> 1.4M-1.8M

BTW, this is purely a guess, no data to back it up.

[an]

Here’s my guess:
500k-750k -> 350k-650k
750k-1M -> 650k-850k
1M-1.5M -> 850k-1.1M
1.5M-2M -> 1.1M-1.4M
2M-3M -> 1.4M-1.8M

BTW, this is purely a guess, no data to back it up.

[sdcellar]

Okay, on this one, I’m taking a chance because I honestly don’t know the enci/cbad market, but with regard to volume, isn’t that something that’s sort of a function of itself?

In other words, as an area grows, the growth drives further growth. This continues until, well, it reverses.

You make the point yourself, NCC used to be a bit more primitive than it is now. Roads didn’t go through, areas weren’t as built up. They didn’t have a costco. This is not that different from Chula Vista and the Temecula Valley. Growth also brings more local employment to the area, making it even more viable as a place to live. It was also cheaper.

So anyway, it grows and grows until someplace else becomes more attractive and people start going there, then the volumes settle down to a steady state. And, of course, all areas go through such cycles (gentrification and whatnot), but it seems hard to deny that the combined zips you provided haven’t been through a bit of a boom decade (moreso than say 92124).

Encinitas proper has been less subject to this it would seem. What do those numbers look like?

[sdcellar]

Okay, on this one, I’m taking a chance because I honestly don’t know the enci/cbad market, but with regard to volume, isn’t that something that’s sort of a function of itself?

In other words, as an area grows, the growth drives further growth. This continues until, well, it reverses.

You make the point yourself, NCC used to be a bit more primitive than it is now. Roads didn’t go through, areas weren’t as built up. They didn’t have a costco. This is not that different from Chula Vista and the Temecula Valley. Growth also brings more local employment to the area, making it even more viable as a place to live. It was also cheaper.

So anyway, it grows and grows until someplace else becomes more attractive and people start going there, then the volumes settle down to a steady state. And, of course, all areas go through such cycles (gentrification and whatnot), but it seems hard to deny that the combined zips you provided haven’t been through a bit of a boom decade (moreso than say 92124).

Encinitas proper has been less subject to this it would seem. What do those numbers look like?

[sdcellar]

Okay, on this one, I’m taking a chance because I honestly don’t know the enci/cbad market, but with regard to volume, isn’t that something that’s sort of a function of itself?

In other words, as an area grows, the growth drives further growth. This continues until, well, it reverses.

You make the point yourself, NCC used to be a bit more primitive than it is now. Roads didn’t go through, areas weren’t as built up. They didn’t have a costco. This is not that different from Chula Vista and the Temecula Valley. Growth also brings more local employment to the area, making it even more viable as a place to live. It was also cheaper.

So anyway, it grows and grows until someplace else becomes more attractive and people start going there, then the volumes settle down to a steady state. And, of course, all areas go through such cycles (gentrification and whatnot), but it seems hard to deny that the combined zips you provided haven’t been through a bit of a boom decade (moreso than say 92124).

Encinitas proper has been less subject to this it would seem. What do those numbers look like?

[sdcellar]

Okay, on this one, I’m taking a chance because I honestly don’t know the enci/cbad market, but with regard to volume, isn’t that something that’s sort of a function of itself?

In other words, as an area grows, the growth drives further growth. This continues until, well, it reverses.

You make the point yourself, NCC used to be a bit more primitive than it is now. Roads didn’t go through, areas weren’t as built up. They didn’t have a costco. This is not that different from Chula Vista and the Temecula Valley. Growth also brings more local employment to the area, making it even more viable as a place to live. It was also cheaper.

So anyway, it grows and grows until someplace else becomes more attractive and people start going there, then the volumes settle down to a steady state. And, of course, all areas go through such cycles (gentrification and whatnot), but it seems hard to deny that the combined zips you provided haven’t been through a bit of a boom decade (moreso than say 92124).

Encinitas proper has been less subject to this it would seem. What do those numbers look like?

[Author]

Posts