Point Loma reducing a little

[jpinpb]

pemeliza – thanks for thinking of me. That is a nice place and good price. Great yard. I hope whoever bought it doesn’t mow the house down. Hard to find lots that size in that area. You have been saying that for some time about Mission Hills. You were calling it for a while and I’ve been noticing it as well.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jpinpb]I know I started this as a PL thread, but this just came active again in 92103, 1824 Puterbaugh. Sold in 2004 for 944k. NOD filed in May 2009. Listed in June 2010. It’s been on and off the market w/the price fluctuating. Right now it’s listed for 590k.

Regardless of condition or exact location, this place previously sold for 944k. Whoever bought it lacked the wherewithal to keep it or maybe lacked the desire to keep it. Maybe they had the money to pay, but financially made the decision to walk. In any case, I was not seeing these kind of reductions last year in 92103.

Also, 1802 Puterbaugh sold for 650k. Last year it was listed for 995k.

I personally like these old houses and while just slightly out of my price range, I have a question. If this is a trend and places like these start selling for 600k, then what will happen to the shacks that are now selling for 600k? I think CAR is right and there will be a squish down compression.[/quote]

These are both beautiful homes, jpinpb. The first one is a move-on. It has a newer roof but no pics of the inside. Reminds me of Coronado (Village area). Either my eyesight’s getting worse or the chimney is leaning towards the house a little bit. The sellers would accept as little as $500K (perhaps all cash) back in August in a VLR listing. The second, Pringle Hill listing is striking and the view is great for that area. The buyers who got that one for $650K were lucky.

The location of these two homes is unbeatable.

Regarding your “squish-down” theory, yes formerly (viewless) $600K homes located in MH would be affected by these two sales (assuming the 1st one sells) and probably have to reduce to <=$500K if they're not "turnkey." But your "squish-down" theory may not apply to Hillcrest 92103 where some streets are zoned for SFR, and/or multifamily/small business. The versatility and convenience there would tend to create its own market and "sold comps" due to multiple uses of its properties. MH is a better place to buy in than most streets in Hillcrest if you want an SFR without the surrounding multifamily bldgs and SFR's converted into small businesses.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jpinpb]I know I started this as a PL thread, but this just came active again in 92103, 1824 Puterbaugh. Sold in 2004 for 944k. NOD filed in May 2009. Listed in June 2010. It’s been on and off the market w/the price fluctuating. Right now it’s listed for 590k.

Regardless of condition or exact location, this place previously sold for 944k. Whoever bought it lacked the wherewithal to keep it or maybe lacked the desire to keep it. Maybe they had the money to pay, but financially made the decision to walk. In any case, I was not seeing these kind of reductions last year in 92103.

Also, 1802 Puterbaugh sold for 650k. Last year it was listed for 995k.

I personally like these old houses and while just slightly out of my price range, I have a question. If this is a trend and places like these start selling for 600k, then what will happen to the shacks that are now selling for 600k? I think CAR is right and there will be a squish down compression.[/quote]

These are both beautiful homes, jpinpb. The first one is a move-on. It has a newer roof but no pics of the inside. Reminds me of Coronado (Village area). Either my eyesight’s getting worse or the chimney is leaning towards the house a little bit. The sellers would accept as little as $500K (perhaps all cash) back in August in a VLR listing. The second, Pringle Hill listing is striking and the view is great for that area. The buyers who got that one for $650K were lucky.

The location of these two homes is unbeatable.

Regarding your “squish-down” theory, yes formerly (viewless) $600K homes located in MH would be affected by these two sales (assuming the 1st one sells) and probably have to reduce to <=$500K if they're not "turnkey." But your "squish-down" theory may not apply to Hillcrest 92103 where some streets are zoned for SFR, and/or multifamily/small business. The versatility and convenience there would tend to create its own market and "sold comps" due to multiple uses of its properties. MH is a better place to buy in than most streets in Hillcrest if you want an SFR without the surrounding multifamily bldgs and SFR's converted into small businesses.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jpinpb]I know I started this as a PL thread, but this just came active again in 92103, 1824 Puterbaugh. Sold in 2004 for 944k. NOD filed in May 2009. Listed in June 2010. It’s been on and off the market w/the price fluctuating. Right now it’s listed for 590k.

Regardless of condition or exact location, this place previously sold for 944k. Whoever bought it lacked the wherewithal to keep it or maybe lacked the desire to keep it. Maybe they had the money to pay, but financially made the decision to walk. In any case, I was not seeing these kind of reductions last year in 92103.

Also, 1802 Puterbaugh sold for 650k. Last year it was listed for 995k.

I personally like these old houses and while just slightly out of my price range, I have a question. If this is a trend and places like these start selling for 600k, then what will happen to the shacks that are now selling for 600k? I think CAR is right and there will be a squish down compression.[/quote]

These are both beautiful homes, jpinpb. The first one is a move-on. It has a newer roof but no pics of the inside. Reminds me of Coronado (Village area). Either my eyesight’s getting worse or the chimney is leaning towards the house a little bit. The sellers would accept as little as $500K (perhaps all cash) back in August in a VLR listing. The second, Pringle Hill listing is striking and the view is great for that area. The buyers who got that one for $650K were lucky.

The location of these two homes is unbeatable.

Regarding your “squish-down” theory, yes formerly (viewless) $600K homes located in MH would be affected by these two sales (assuming the 1st one sells) and probably have to reduce to <=$500K if they're not "turnkey." But your "squish-down" theory may not apply to Hillcrest 92103 where some streets are zoned for SFR, and/or multifamily/small business. The versatility and convenience there would tend to create its own market and "sold comps" due to multiple uses of its properties. MH is a better place to buy in than most streets in Hillcrest if you want an SFR without the surrounding multifamily bldgs and SFR's converted into small businesses.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jpinpb]I know I started this as a PL thread, but this just came active again in 92103, 1824 Puterbaugh. Sold in 2004 for 944k. NOD filed in May 2009. Listed in June 2010. It’s been on and off the market w/the price fluctuating. Right now it’s listed for 590k.

Regardless of condition or exact location, this place previously sold for 944k. Whoever bought it lacked the wherewithal to keep it or maybe lacked the desire to keep it. Maybe they had the money to pay, but financially made the decision to walk. In any case, I was not seeing these kind of reductions last year in 92103.

Also, 1802 Puterbaugh sold for 650k. Last year it was listed for 995k.

I personally like these old houses and while just slightly out of my price range, I have a question. If this is a trend and places like these start selling for 600k, then what will happen to the shacks that are now selling for 600k? I think CAR is right and there will be a squish down compression.[/quote]

These are both beautiful homes, jpinpb. The first one is a move-on. It has a newer roof but no pics of the inside. Reminds me of Coronado (Village area). Either my eyesight’s getting worse or the chimney is leaning towards the house a little bit. The sellers would accept as little as $500K (perhaps all cash) back in August in a VLR listing. The second, Pringle Hill listing is striking and the view is great for that area. The buyers who got that one for $650K were lucky.

The location of these two homes is unbeatable.

Regarding your “squish-down” theory, yes formerly (viewless) $600K homes located in MH would be affected by these two sales (assuming the 1st one sells) and probably have to reduce to <=$500K if they're not "turnkey." But your "squish-down" theory may not apply to Hillcrest 92103 where some streets are zoned for SFR, and/or multifamily/small business. The versatility and convenience there would tend to create its own market and "sold comps" due to multiple uses of its properties. MH is a better place to buy in than most streets in Hillcrest if you want an SFR without the surrounding multifamily bldgs and SFR's converted into small businesses.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jpinpb]I know I started this as a PL thread, but this just came active again in 92103, 1824 Puterbaugh. Sold in 2004 for 944k. NOD filed in May 2009. Listed in June 2010. It’s been on and off the market w/the price fluctuating. Right now it’s listed for 590k.

Regardless of condition or exact location, this place previously sold for 944k. Whoever bought it lacked the wherewithal to keep it or maybe lacked the desire to keep it. Maybe they had the money to pay, but financially made the decision to walk. In any case, I was not seeing these kind of reductions last year in 92103.

Also, 1802 Puterbaugh sold for 650k. Last year it was listed for 995k.

I personally like these old houses and while just slightly out of my price range, I have a question. If this is a trend and places like these start selling for 600k, then what will happen to the shacks that are now selling for 600k? I think CAR is right and there will be a squish down compression.[/quote]

These are both beautiful homes, jpinpb. The first one is a move-on. It has a newer roof but no pics of the inside. Reminds me of Coronado (Village area). Either my eyesight’s getting worse or the chimney is leaning towards the house a little bit. The sellers would accept as little as $500K (perhaps all cash) back in August in a VLR listing. The second, Pringle Hill listing is striking and the view is great for that area. The buyers who got that one for $650K were lucky.

The location of these two homes is unbeatable.

Regarding your “squish-down” theory, yes formerly (viewless) $600K homes located in MH would be affected by these two sales (assuming the 1st one sells) and probably have to reduce to <=$500K if they're not "turnkey." But your "squish-down" theory may not apply to Hillcrest 92103 where some streets are zoned for SFR, and/or multifamily/small business. The versatility and convenience there would tend to create its own market and "sold comps" due to multiple uses of its properties. MH is a better place to buy in than most streets in Hillcrest if you want an SFR without the surrounding multifamily bldgs and SFR's converted into small businesses.

[an]

[quote=jpinpb]I know I started this as a PL thread, but this just came active again in 92103, 1824 Puterbaugh. Sold in 2004 for 944k. NOD filed in May 2009. Listed in June 2010. It’s been on and off the market w/the price fluctuating. Right now it’s listed for 590k.

Regardless of condition or exact location, this place previously sold for 944k. Whoever bought it lacked the wherewithal to keep it or maybe lacked the desire to keep it. Maybe they had the money to pay, but financially made the decision to walk. In any case, I was not seeing these kind of reductions last year in 92103.

Also, 1802 Puterbaugh sold for 650k. Last year it was listed for 995k.

I personally like these old houses and while just slightly out of my price range, I have a question. If this is a trend and places like these start selling for 600k, then what will happen to the shacks that are now selling for 600k? I think CAR is right and there will be a squish down compression.[/quote]
Wow, someone actually paid $944k for a house that was sold for $204k in 1985? This house was sold for $212k in 1985: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100011141-3007_Cadencia_St_Carlsbad_CA_92009 and in 2005, it only got up to $770k. So, whoever bought that house for $944k must be on crack.

[an]

[quote=jpinpb]I know I started this as a PL thread, but this just came active again in 92103, 1824 Puterbaugh. Sold in 2004 for 944k. NOD filed in May 2009. Listed in June 2010. It’s been on and off the market w/the price fluctuating. Right now it’s listed for 590k.

Regardless of condition or exact location, this place previously sold for 944k. Whoever bought it lacked the wherewithal to keep it or maybe lacked the desire to keep it. Maybe they had the money to pay, but financially made the decision to walk. In any case, I was not seeing these kind of reductions last year in 92103.

Also, 1802 Puterbaugh sold for 650k. Last year it was listed for 995k.

I personally like these old houses and while just slightly out of my price range, I have a question. If this is a trend and places like these start selling for 600k, then what will happen to the shacks that are now selling for 600k? I think CAR is right and there will be a squish down compression.[/quote]
Wow, someone actually paid $944k for a house that was sold for $204k in 1985? This house was sold for $212k in 1985: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100011141-3007_Cadencia_St_Carlsbad_CA_92009 and in 2005, it only got up to $770k. So, whoever bought that house for $944k must be on crack.

[an]

[quote=jpinpb]I know I started this as a PL thread, but this just came active again in 92103, 1824 Puterbaugh. Sold in 2004 for 944k. NOD filed in May 2009. Listed in June 2010. It’s been on and off the market w/the price fluctuating. Right now it’s listed for 590k.

Regardless of condition or exact location, this place previously sold for 944k. Whoever bought it lacked the wherewithal to keep it or maybe lacked the desire to keep it. Maybe they had the money to pay, but financially made the decision to walk. In any case, I was not seeing these kind of reductions last year in 92103.

Also, 1802 Puterbaugh sold for 650k. Last year it was listed for 995k.

I personally like these old houses and while just slightly out of my price range, I have a question. If this is a trend and places like these start selling for 600k, then what will happen to the shacks that are now selling for 600k? I think CAR is right and there will be a squish down compression.[/quote]
Wow, someone actually paid $944k for a house that was sold for $204k in 1985? This house was sold for $212k in 1985: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100011141-3007_Cadencia_St_Carlsbad_CA_92009 and in 2005, it only got up to $770k. So, whoever bought that house for $944k must be on crack.

[an]

[quote=jpinpb]I know I started this as a PL thread, but this just came active again in 92103, 1824 Puterbaugh. Sold in 2004 for 944k. NOD filed in May 2009. Listed in June 2010. It’s been on and off the market w/the price fluctuating. Right now it’s listed for 590k.

Regardless of condition or exact location, this place previously sold for 944k. Whoever bought it lacked the wherewithal to keep it or maybe lacked the desire to keep it. Maybe they had the money to pay, but financially made the decision to walk. In any case, I was not seeing these kind of reductions last year in 92103.

Also, 1802 Puterbaugh sold for 650k. Last year it was listed for 995k.

I personally like these old houses and while just slightly out of my price range, I have a question. If this is a trend and places like these start selling for 600k, then what will happen to the shacks that are now selling for 600k? I think CAR is right and there will be a squish down compression.[/quote]
Wow, someone actually paid $944k for a house that was sold for $204k in 1985? This house was sold for $212k in 1985: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100011141-3007_Cadencia_St_Carlsbad_CA_92009 and in 2005, it only got up to $770k. So, whoever bought that house for $944k must be on crack.

[an]

[quote=jpinpb]I know I started this as a PL thread, but this just came active again in 92103, 1824 Puterbaugh. Sold in 2004 for 944k. NOD filed in May 2009. Listed in June 2010. It’s been on and off the market w/the price fluctuating. Right now it’s listed for 590k.

Regardless of condition or exact location, this place previously sold for 944k. Whoever bought it lacked the wherewithal to keep it or maybe lacked the desire to keep it. Maybe they had the money to pay, but financially made the decision to walk. In any case, I was not seeing these kind of reductions last year in 92103.

Also, 1802 Puterbaugh sold for 650k. Last year it was listed for 995k.

I personally like these old houses and while just slightly out of my price range, I have a question. If this is a trend and places like these start selling for 600k, then what will happen to the shacks that are now selling for 600k? I think CAR is right and there will be a squish down compression.[/quote]
Wow, someone actually paid $944k for a house that was sold for $204k in 1985? This house was sold for $212k in 1985: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100011141-3007_Cadencia_St_Carlsbad_CA_92009 and in 2005, it only got up to $770k. So, whoever bought that house for $944k must be on crack.

[jpinpb]

[quote=AN]Wow, someone actually paid $944k for a house that was sold for $204k in 1985? This house was sold for $212k in 1985: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100011141-3007_Cadencia_St_Carlsbad_CA_92009 and in 2005, it only got up to $770k. So, whoever bought that house for $944k must be on crack.[/quote]

There were a lot of crazy sales during the bubble. 92103 is still holding on compared to other areas w/their median/average around $473 psf.

Edit – came across one more in 92103. 1432 Bush sold in 2007 for 825k. They listed it in January for 825k. Now listed for 660k-680k. Took them a year to reconsider their initial price.

Reductions are coming.

[jpinpb]

[quote=AN]Wow, someone actually paid $944k for a house that was sold for $204k in 1985? This house was sold for $212k in 1985: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100011141-3007_Cadencia_St_Carlsbad_CA_92009 and in 2005, it only got up to $770k. So, whoever bought that house for $944k must be on crack.[/quote]

There were a lot of crazy sales during the bubble. 92103 is still holding on compared to other areas w/their median/average around $473 psf.

Edit – came across one more in 92103. 1432 Bush sold in 2007 for 825k. They listed it in January for 825k. Now listed for 660k-680k. Took them a year to reconsider their initial price.

Reductions are coming.

[jpinpb]

[quote=AN]Wow, someone actually paid $944k for a house that was sold for $204k in 1985? This house was sold for $212k in 1985: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100011141-3007_Cadencia_St_Carlsbad_CA_92009 and in 2005, it only got up to $770k. So, whoever bought that house for $944k must be on crack.[/quote]

There were a lot of crazy sales during the bubble. 92103 is still holding on compared to other areas w/their median/average around $473 psf.

Edit – came across one more in 92103. 1432 Bush sold in 2007 for 825k. They listed it in January for 825k. Now listed for 660k-680k. Took them a year to reconsider their initial price.

Reductions are coming.

[jpinpb]

[quote=AN]Wow, someone actually paid $944k for a house that was sold for $204k in 1985? This house was sold for $212k in 1985: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100011141-3007_Cadencia_St_Carlsbad_CA_92009 and in 2005, it only got up to $770k. So, whoever bought that house for $944k must be on crack.[/quote]

There were a lot of crazy sales during the bubble. 92103 is still holding on compared to other areas w/their median/average around $473 psf.

Edit – came across one more in 92103. 1432 Bush sold in 2007 for 825k. They listed it in January for 825k. Now listed for 660k-680k. Took them a year to reconsider their initial price.

Reductions are coming.

[Author]

Posts