Point Loma reducing a little

[zzz]

JP, I don’t know how closely you’re following 92103, but I am viewing a lot of the homes, streets, lots and overall the inventory is VERY poor. So the homes that sit on the market are because they have a lot of issues, have very por layout or very poor remodels. But nice homes in 92103 get snatched up with bidding wars. The house on Bush is not a great deal in my opinion because there is no driveway, no garage, not really any ideal places to park. There is no yard either as its built over the canyon. Also, the bedrooms are below the slab, and feel a bit damp and musty. The kitchen and bathroom off of it are a bit funky.

I think I saw one of your posts about the low end in MH and those homes on Goldfinch and Reynard are not desirable. That is a VERY busy street with a lot of cars driving very fast and high speed car crashes. Also there are very few single family homes on the street.

A lot of what’s on the market that might look like a great deal is not, and the pictures are very deceiving. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve looked at the pictures thinking it has promise only to see the house and its nothing like it.

If you are really interested in MH, I’d suggest you start looking at the homes, because there are so many variables within the neighborhood in terms of pockets of it, streets, etc.

PM if you want any insights on specific properties.

[an]

[quote=jpinpb]AN – I don’t think comparing homes in MM to 92103 is comparing apples to apples. The PPSF in 92103 is still high and that listing on Bush is below the median/average – which IMO is still high, but it is what it is for the high end – for now. Maybe these listings are canaries. Ever so slowly rip the bandaid off, trying to not feel the pain and maybe no one will notice the gradual price declines slowly infiltrating the high end.[/quote]
They might not be apple to apple in your eyes, but to the eyes of the buyers in those areas, they both worth about the same in 1986. That’s what I’m trying to say. Did 92103 become more desirable since 1986 vs 92126? I’m trying to say I understand your frustration and I don’t think those houses 92103 are worth what they’re selling for now, even with a massive price drop from the peak. They’re still way above its 1986 price.

BTW, I hardly consider houses that’s sold for low to mid $100k in 1986 as high end. Just because it peak higher doesn’t make it high end. There are many $1M homes in Chula Vista at the peak that are now selling around $500k. Do you consider those as high end homes as well?

[an]

[quote=jpinpb]AN – I don’t think comparing homes in MM to 92103 is comparing apples to apples. The PPSF in 92103 is still high and that listing on Bush is below the median/average – which IMO is still high, but it is what it is for the high end – for now. Maybe these listings are canaries. Ever so slowly rip the bandaid off, trying to not feel the pain and maybe no one will notice the gradual price declines slowly infiltrating the high end.[/quote]
They might not be apple to apple in your eyes, but to the eyes of the buyers in those areas, they both worth about the same in 1986. That’s what I’m trying to say. Did 92103 become more desirable since 1986 vs 92126? I’m trying to say I understand your frustration and I don’t think those houses 92103 are worth what they’re selling for now, even with a massive price drop from the peak. They’re still way above its 1986 price.

BTW, I hardly consider houses that’s sold for low to mid $100k in 1986 as high end. Just because it peak higher doesn’t make it high end. There are many $1M homes in Chula Vista at the peak that are now selling around $500k. Do you consider those as high end homes as well?

[an]

[quote=jpinpb]AN – I don’t think comparing homes in MM to 92103 is comparing apples to apples. The PPSF in 92103 is still high and that listing on Bush is below the median/average – which IMO is still high, but it is what it is for the high end – for now. Maybe these listings are canaries. Ever so slowly rip the bandaid off, trying to not feel the pain and maybe no one will notice the gradual price declines slowly infiltrating the high end.[/quote]
They might not be apple to apple in your eyes, but to the eyes of the buyers in those areas, they both worth about the same in 1986. That’s what I’m trying to say. Did 92103 become more desirable since 1986 vs 92126? I’m trying to say I understand your frustration and I don’t think those houses 92103 are worth what they’re selling for now, even with a massive price drop from the peak. They’re still way above its 1986 price.

BTW, I hardly consider houses that’s sold for low to mid $100k in 1986 as high end. Just because it peak higher doesn’t make it high end. There are many $1M homes in Chula Vista at the peak that are now selling around $500k. Do you consider those as high end homes as well?

[an]

[quote=jpinpb]AN – I don’t think comparing homes in MM to 92103 is comparing apples to apples. The PPSF in 92103 is still high and that listing on Bush is below the median/average – which IMO is still high, but it is what it is for the high end – for now. Maybe these listings are canaries. Ever so slowly rip the bandaid off, trying to not feel the pain and maybe no one will notice the gradual price declines slowly infiltrating the high end.[/quote]
They might not be apple to apple in your eyes, but to the eyes of the buyers in those areas, they both worth about the same in 1986. That’s what I’m trying to say. Did 92103 become more desirable since 1986 vs 92126? I’m trying to say I understand your frustration and I don’t think those houses 92103 are worth what they’re selling for now, even with a massive price drop from the peak. They’re still way above its 1986 price.

BTW, I hardly consider houses that’s sold for low to mid $100k in 1986 as high end. Just because it peak higher doesn’t make it high end. There are many $1M homes in Chula Vista at the peak that are now selling around $500k. Do you consider those as high end homes as well?

[an]

[quote=jpinpb]AN – I don’t think comparing homes in MM to 92103 is comparing apples to apples. The PPSF in 92103 is still high and that listing on Bush is below the median/average – which IMO is still high, but it is what it is for the high end – for now. Maybe these listings are canaries. Ever so slowly rip the bandaid off, trying to not feel the pain and maybe no one will notice the gradual price declines slowly infiltrating the high end.[/quote]
They might not be apple to apple in your eyes, but to the eyes of the buyers in those areas, they both worth about the same in 1986. That’s what I’m trying to say. Did 92103 become more desirable since 1986 vs 92126? I’m trying to say I understand your frustration and I don’t think those houses 92103 are worth what they’re selling for now, even with a massive price drop from the peak. They’re still way above its 1986 price.

BTW, I hardly consider houses that’s sold for low to mid $100k in 1986 as high end. Just because it peak higher doesn’t make it high end. There are many $1M homes in Chula Vista at the peak that are now selling around $500k. Do you consider those as high end homes as well?

[pemeliza]

AN, certain areas did appreciate faster since 1986 than others. Look at La Jolla for a striking example.

[pemeliza]

AN, certain areas did appreciate faster since 1986 than others. Look at La Jolla for a striking example.

[pemeliza]

AN, certain areas did appreciate faster since 1986 than others. Look at La Jolla for a striking example.

[pemeliza]

AN, certain areas did appreciate faster since 1986 than others. Look at La Jolla for a striking example.

[pemeliza]

AN, certain areas did appreciate faster since 1986 than others. Look at La Jolla for a striking example.

[jpinpb]

zzz – thanks for the feedback on 92103. Really the point of posting some of these listings is more as examples of how a year ago the sellers were not budging on price and how they are now reducing. Certainly the less desirable places are the first to succomb to reductions.

AN – I understand what you’re saying now and yes, there is a greater gap today between median areas and high end areas than pre-bubble. Maybe eventually an adjustment will be seen.

[jpinpb]

zzz – thanks for the feedback on 92103. Really the point of posting some of these listings is more as examples of how a year ago the sellers were not budging on price and how they are now reducing. Certainly the less desirable places are the first to succomb to reductions.

AN – I understand what you’re saying now and yes, there is a greater gap today between median areas and high end areas than pre-bubble. Maybe eventually an adjustment will be seen.

[jpinpb]

zzz – thanks for the feedback on 92103. Really the point of posting some of these listings is more as examples of how a year ago the sellers were not budging on price and how they are now reducing. Certainly the less desirable places are the first to succomb to reductions.

AN – I understand what you’re saying now and yes, there is a greater gap today between median areas and high end areas than pre-bubble. Maybe eventually an adjustment will be seen.

[jpinpb]

zzz – thanks for the feedback on 92103. Really the point of posting some of these listings is more as examples of how a year ago the sellers were not budging on price and how they are now reducing. Certainly the less desirable places are the first to succomb to reductions.

AN – I understand what you’re saying now and yes, there is a greater gap today between median areas and high end areas than pre-bubble. Maybe eventually an adjustment will be seen.

[Author]

Posts