North County Coastal Market-Why so sticky?

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN]Please explain: “So, much of the growth is normal, but it would be unwise to assume it’s all natural.”
How can something be normal yet not natural at the same time?[/quote]Focus on the words “much” and “all”.

North county coastal as a population center grew in the past decade (moreso than say, Clairemont), so that would be normal (perhaps I should say explainable). The bubble was what most of us would consider unnatural and it affected NCC as much as it did any other part of the county.

[pemeliza]

I am not a realtor and so do not have access to the mls. However, the website propertyshark.com seems to be pretty darn good.

Here are the number of sales in 92024 (Encinitas) broken down per year: (The price, SF, PPSF columns are all medians).

Year Sales Price SF PPSF
2010 19 $575,000 1,567 $334
2009 575 $595,000 1,779 $330
2008 444 $680,000 1,830 $360
2007 508 $735,000 1,830 $388
2006 496 $748,000 1,830 $400
2005 561 $750,000 1,778 $421
2004 545 $680,000 1,834 $371
2003 624 $560,000 1,938 $295
2002 539 $500,000 2,008 $244
2001 425 $407,000 1,815 $230
2000 464 $396,000 1,938 $198
1999 568 $305,000 1,779 $176
1998 469 $270,000 1,792 $153
1997 371 $246,000 1,836 $136
1996 308 $234,000 1,877 $127
1995 217 $225,000 1,831 $122
1994 265 $225,000 1,867 $127
1993 246 $224,000 1,854 $121
1992 176 $250,000 1,888 $132
1991 142 $241,000 1,686 $135
1990 158 $270,000 1,832 $144
1989 180 $255,000 1,861 $134
1988 244 $212,000 1,901 $112

I believe that this data points out two things:

1.) Sales volume during 2009 actually isn’t that much different than during the peak years.

2.) 92024 was ridiculously under-priced in the 90’s.

propertyshark.com is a free site (you have to register). An analysis could be performed on any zipcode.

One other note, one reason why the sales volume in 92024 may not have changed from the peak as much as some of the other zips is that the 92024 didn’t have as much land to build on as say 92009 … thus not as many new mega developments like La Costa Valley.

[pemeliza]

I am not a realtor and so do not have access to the mls. However, the website propertyshark.com seems to be pretty darn good.

Here are the number of sales in 92024 (Encinitas) broken down per year: (The price, SF, PPSF columns are all medians).

Year Sales Price SF PPSF
2010 19 $575,000 1,567 $334
2009 575 $595,000 1,779 $330
2008 444 $680,000 1,830 $360
2007 508 $735,000 1,830 $388
2006 496 $748,000 1,830 $400
2005 561 $750,000 1,778 $421
2004 545 $680,000 1,834 $371
2003 624 $560,000 1,938 $295
2002 539 $500,000 2,008 $244
2001 425 $407,000 1,815 $230
2000 464 $396,000 1,938 $198
1999 568 $305,000 1,779 $176
1998 469 $270,000 1,792 $153
1997 371 $246,000 1,836 $136
1996 308 $234,000 1,877 $127
1995 217 $225,000 1,831 $122
1994 265 $225,000 1,867 $127
1993 246 $224,000 1,854 $121
1992 176 $250,000 1,888 $132
1991 142 $241,000 1,686 $135
1990 158 $270,000 1,832 $144
1989 180 $255,000 1,861 $134
1988 244 $212,000 1,901 $112

I believe that this data points out two things:

1.) Sales volume during 2009 actually isn’t that much different than during the peak years.

2.) 92024 was ridiculously under-priced in the 90’s.

propertyshark.com is a free site (you have to register). An analysis could be performed on any zipcode.

One other note, one reason why the sales volume in 92024 may not have changed from the peak as much as some of the other zips is that the 92024 didn’t have as much land to build on as say 92009 … thus not as many new mega developments like La Costa Valley.

[pemeliza]

I am not a realtor and so do not have access to the mls. However, the website propertyshark.com seems to be pretty darn good.

Here are the number of sales in 92024 (Encinitas) broken down per year: (The price, SF, PPSF columns are all medians).

Year Sales Price SF PPSF
2010 19 $575,000 1,567 $334
2009 575 $595,000 1,779 $330
2008 444 $680,000 1,830 $360
2007 508 $735,000 1,830 $388
2006 496 $748,000 1,830 $400
2005 561 $750,000 1,778 $421
2004 545 $680,000 1,834 $371
2003 624 $560,000 1,938 $295
2002 539 $500,000 2,008 $244
2001 425 $407,000 1,815 $230
2000 464 $396,000 1,938 $198
1999 568 $305,000 1,779 $176
1998 469 $270,000 1,792 $153
1997 371 $246,000 1,836 $136
1996 308 $234,000 1,877 $127
1995 217 $225,000 1,831 $122
1994 265 $225,000 1,867 $127
1993 246 $224,000 1,854 $121
1992 176 $250,000 1,888 $132
1991 142 $241,000 1,686 $135
1990 158 $270,000 1,832 $144
1989 180 $255,000 1,861 $134
1988 244 $212,000 1,901 $112

I believe that this data points out two things:

1.) Sales volume during 2009 actually isn’t that much different than during the peak years.

2.) 92024 was ridiculously under-priced in the 90’s.

propertyshark.com is a free site (you have to register). An analysis could be performed on any zipcode.

One other note, one reason why the sales volume in 92024 may not have changed from the peak as much as some of the other zips is that the 92024 didn’t have as much land to build on as say 92009 … thus not as many new mega developments like La Costa Valley.

[pemeliza]

I am not a realtor and so do not have access to the mls. However, the website propertyshark.com seems to be pretty darn good.

Here are the number of sales in 92024 (Encinitas) broken down per year: (The price, SF, PPSF columns are all medians).

Year Sales Price SF PPSF
2010 19 $575,000 1,567 $334
2009 575 $595,000 1,779 $330
2008 444 $680,000 1,830 $360
2007 508 $735,000 1,830 $388
2006 496 $748,000 1,830 $400
2005 561 $750,000 1,778 $421
2004 545 $680,000 1,834 $371
2003 624 $560,000 1,938 $295
2002 539 $500,000 2,008 $244
2001 425 $407,000 1,815 $230
2000 464 $396,000 1,938 $198
1999 568 $305,000 1,779 $176
1998 469 $270,000 1,792 $153
1997 371 $246,000 1,836 $136
1996 308 $234,000 1,877 $127
1995 217 $225,000 1,831 $122
1994 265 $225,000 1,867 $127
1993 246 $224,000 1,854 $121
1992 176 $250,000 1,888 $132
1991 142 $241,000 1,686 $135
1990 158 $270,000 1,832 $144
1989 180 $255,000 1,861 $134
1988 244 $212,000 1,901 $112

I believe that this data points out two things:

1.) Sales volume during 2009 actually isn’t that much different than during the peak years.

2.) 92024 was ridiculously under-priced in the 90’s.

propertyshark.com is a free site (you have to register). An analysis could be performed on any zipcode.

One other note, one reason why the sales volume in 92024 may not have changed from the peak as much as some of the other zips is that the 92024 didn’t have as much land to build on as say 92009 … thus not as many new mega developments like La Costa Valley.

[pemeliza]

I am not a realtor and so do not have access to the mls. However, the website propertyshark.com seems to be pretty darn good.

Here are the number of sales in 92024 (Encinitas) broken down per year: (The price, SF, PPSF columns are all medians).

Year Sales Price SF PPSF
2010 19 $575,000 1,567 $334
2009 575 $595,000 1,779 $330
2008 444 $680,000 1,830 $360
2007 508 $735,000 1,830 $388
2006 496 $748,000 1,830 $400
2005 561 $750,000 1,778 $421
2004 545 $680,000 1,834 $371
2003 624 $560,000 1,938 $295
2002 539 $500,000 2,008 $244
2001 425 $407,000 1,815 $230
2000 464 $396,000 1,938 $198
1999 568 $305,000 1,779 $176
1998 469 $270,000 1,792 $153
1997 371 $246,000 1,836 $136
1996 308 $234,000 1,877 $127
1995 217 $225,000 1,831 $122
1994 265 $225,000 1,867 $127
1993 246 $224,000 1,854 $121
1992 176 $250,000 1,888 $132
1991 142 $241,000 1,686 $135
1990 158 $270,000 1,832 $144
1989 180 $255,000 1,861 $134
1988 244 $212,000 1,901 $112

I believe that this data points out two things:

1.) Sales volume during 2009 actually isn’t that much different than during the peak years.

2.) 92024 was ridiculously under-priced in the 90’s.

propertyshark.com is a free site (you have to register). An analysis could be performed on any zipcode.

One other note, one reason why the sales volume in 92024 may not have changed from the peak as much as some of the other zips is that the 92024 didn’t have as much land to build on as say 92009 … thus not as many new mega developments like La Costa Valley.

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]Read the post I just made, but I’ll go with gut feeling and the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.

sdrealtor himself has suggested that sales “churn” increased during the bubble years.

What we need to unearth are annual resales per thousand homes by zip code and year. I’ll bet we could learn a lot from that.[/quote]
Yes, annual resales per thousand homes would be a great data to see.

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]Read the post I just made, but I’ll go with gut feeling and the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.

sdrealtor himself has suggested that sales “churn” increased during the bubble years.

What we need to unearth are annual resales per thousand homes by zip code and year. I’ll bet we could learn a lot from that.[/quote]
Yes, annual resales per thousand homes would be a great data to see.

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]Read the post I just made, but I’ll go with gut feeling and the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.

sdrealtor himself has suggested that sales “churn” increased during the bubble years.

What we need to unearth are annual resales per thousand homes by zip code and year. I’ll bet we could learn a lot from that.[/quote]
Yes, annual resales per thousand homes would be a great data to see.

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]Read the post I just made, but I’ll go with gut feeling and the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.

sdrealtor himself has suggested that sales “churn” increased during the bubble years.

What we need to unearth are annual resales per thousand homes by zip code and year. I’ll bet we could learn a lot from that.[/quote]
Yes, annual resales per thousand homes would be a great data to see.

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]Read the post I just made, but I’ll go with gut feeling and the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.

sdrealtor himself has suggested that sales “churn” increased during the bubble years.

What we need to unearth are annual resales per thousand homes by zip code and year. I’ll bet we could learn a lot from that.[/quote]
Yes, annual resales per thousand homes would be a great data to see.

[sdcellar]

pemeliza– Awesome! That’s why I wanted to see just Encinitas, specifically because of the limited impact of new home sales.

[sdcellar]

pemeliza– Awesome! That’s why I wanted to see just Encinitas, specifically because of the limited impact of new home sales.

[sdcellar]

pemeliza– Awesome! That’s why I wanted to see just Encinitas, specifically because of the limited impact of new home sales.

[sdcellar]

pemeliza– Awesome! That’s why I wanted to see just Encinitas, specifically because of the limited impact of new home sales.

[Author]

Posts