Home › Forums › Closed Forums › Properties or Areas › Point Loma reducing a little
- This topic has 1,393 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 8 months ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 23, 2011 at 9:01 PM #724601August 24, 2011 at 12:47 AM #723488
CA renter
Participant[quote=jpinpb]I think they got a pretty good deal. 540 Gage Ln.
Originally the wish LP was $3,295,000.
MLS#: 100072738
Beds/Baths: 3 / 4
Est Square Feet: 3,509 sf
PPSF: $527
Lot Size: 49,223 sfIt just closed for $1,850,000. That’s 2002 pricing, but when you factor in the low interest rates, I think for La Playa, they did well.[/quote]
A smooth $1,000,000 loss for somebody…
August 24, 2011 at 12:47 AM #723577Participant[quote=jpinpb]I think they got a pretty good deal. 540 Gage Ln.
Originally the wish LP was $3,295,000.
MLS#: 100072738
Beds/Baths: 3 / 4
Est Square Feet: 3,509 sf
PPSF: $527
Lot Size: 49,223 sfIt just closed for $1,850,000. That’s 2002 pricing, but when you factor in the low interest rates, I think for La Playa, they did well.[/quote]
A smooth $1,000,000 loss for somebody…
August 24, 2011 at 12:47 AM #724169Participant[quote=jpinpb]I think they got a pretty good deal. 540 Gage Ln.
Originally the wish LP was $3,295,000.
MLS#: 100072738
Beds/Baths: 3 / 4
Est Square Feet: 3,509 sf
PPSF: $527
Lot Size: 49,223 sfIt just closed for $1,850,000. That’s 2002 pricing, but when you factor in the low interest rates, I think for La Playa, they did well.[/quote]
A smooth $1,000,000 loss for somebody…
August 24, 2011 at 12:47 AM #724326Participant[quote=jpinpb]I think they got a pretty good deal. 540 Gage Ln.
Originally the wish LP was $3,295,000.
MLS#: 100072738
Beds/Baths: 3 / 4
Est Square Feet: 3,509 sf
PPSF: $527
Lot Size: 49,223 sfIt just closed for $1,850,000. That’s 2002 pricing, but when you factor in the low interest rates, I think for La Playa, they did well.[/quote]
A smooth $1,000,000 loss for somebody…
August 24, 2011 at 12:47 AM #724682Participant[quote=jpinpb]I think they got a pretty good deal. 540 Gage Ln.
Originally the wish LP was $3,295,000.
MLS#: 100072738
Beds/Baths: 3 / 4
Est Square Feet: 3,509 sf
PPSF: $527
Lot Size: 49,223 sfIt just closed for $1,850,000. That’s 2002 pricing, but when you factor in the low interest rates, I think for La Playa, they did well.[/quote]
A smooth $1,000,000 loss for somebody…
October 4, 2011 at 8:15 AM #730003jpinpb
ParticipantAnother little reduction in PL. 2210 Plum sold for 750k. They originally listed it for 945k. They were thinking they could actually sell it for more than what they paid for it in 2007 (925k)
If you ask me, 750k is still a lot. But it is PL. But it is not too far from the airplane noise, which is a negative. But it is a very nice place. In any case, one more house that has sold for less in PL.
October 4, 2011 at 9:07 AM #730004an
Participant[quote=jpinpb]Another little reduction in PL. 2210 Plum sold for 750k. They originally listed it for 945k. They were thinking they could actually sell it for more than what they paid for it in 2007 (925k)
If you ask me, 750k is still a lot. But it is PL. But it is not too far from the airplane noise, which is a negative. But it is a very nice place. In any case, one more house that has sold for less in PL.[/quote]
20% above 2003 price of $625k. That’s nothing to be excited. Now, if it was sold for mid to high 500k, then it would be in a better range.October 4, 2011 at 9:38 AM #730005ParticipantAgreed. It was only 19% off the 2007 price and that’s why I said it reduced a little. For the most part, PL has been holding on. Every once in a while some reductions happen. For a ZIP w/fewer NODS than most, I’m still surprised.
October 4, 2011 at 1:50 PM #730010bearishgurl
Participant[quote=AN]20% above 2003 price of $625k. That’s nothing to be excited. Now, if it was sold for mid to high 500k, then it would be in a better range.[/quote]
AN, it is obvious here that those 2003 buyers sunk a lot of $$ into it in the form of rehab costs. Thus the 2007 sold price of $925K (factoring in possible “easy mtg $$” and costs of sale).
It is clear from the recent sale price that some “very motivated” sellers either took a huge loss as to their OWN cash or it was a “short sale.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if the 2003 owners sunk 100K+ into the property in materials alone in ADDITION to labor costs and sales costs.
In spite of being “close” to the rising path, Plum is ONE of the BEST STREETS in Fleetridge.
AN, if you believe you will be able to get something for “mid to high $500k” in that hundred block on that street, it will either be a very heavy fixer or a razed view lot. And good luck to you!
A very interesting and unusual property with excellent curb appeal, jp! Thanks again for sharing this good buy!!
October 4, 2011 at 2:05 PM #730011Participant[quote=bearishgurl]AN, it is obvious here that those 2003 buyers sunk a lot of $$ into it in the form of rehab costs. Thus the 2007 sold price of $925K (factoring in possible “easy mtg $$” and costs of sale).
It is clear from the recent sale price that some “very motivated” sellers either took a huge loss as to their OWN cash or it was a “short sale.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if the 2003 owners sunk 100K+ into the property in materials alone in ADDITION to labor costs and sales costs.
In spite of being “close” to the rising path, Plum is ONE of the BEST STREETS in Fleetridge.
AN, if you believe you will be able to get something for “mid to high $500k” in that hundred block on that street, it will either be a very heavy fixer or a razed view lot. And good luck to you!
A very interesting and unusual property with excellent curb appeal, jp! Thanks again for sharing this good buy!![/quote]
This is what the listing said: “Luxurious Point Loma home with extensive remodel the last three years…”. Last I checked, 3 years ago was 2008, which would mean the buyer who bought in 2007 did the remodeling, not the buyer who bought in 2003.
Where do you get the $100k+ from? Got data to back that up? I have to call BS on $100k+ in materials. I have first hand experience in buying materials of those quality for a house that’s bigger and have one extra bathroom and I can tell you it’s FAR from $100k+ in materials, unless they overpaid for everything.
Did this street got 20% better between 2003 and 2011?
October 4, 2011 at 2:15 PM #730012ParticipantThere’s no question that this sold for higher than 2003 pricing. But a very nice, upgraded home in PL, when factoring in the very low interest rates we have today, I’d say that makes up for the higher than 2003 price in this case.
Edit: Oh, and it appears it originally Listed: 08/24/2010 for $1,045,000
October 4, 2011 at 3:56 PM #730017Participant[quote=AN]This is what the listing said: “Luxurious Point Loma home with extensive remodel the last three years…”. Last I checked, 3 years ago was 2008, which would mean the buyer who bought in 2007 did the remodeling, not the buyer who bought in 2003.
Where do you get the $100k+ from? Got data to back that up? I have to call BS on $100k+ in materials. I have first hand experience in buying materials of those quality for a house that’s bigger and have one extra bathroom and I can tell you it’s FAR from $100k+ in materials, unless they overpaid for everything.
Did this street got 20% better between 2003 and 2011?[/quote]
First of all, AN, if you are actually “buying materials of those quality” (for a house in MM??), then you are grossly overspending for that area.
Yes, this (house) “got 20% better between 2003 and 2011” BECAUSE of the “remodel,” WHICHEVER owner did all or most of it.
Luxurious Point Loma home with extensive remodel the last three years embodying Spanish Old World Charm with Modern Conveniences including large arched picture windows, leaded stained glass window and cozy living room fireplace. Hardwood floors throughout, lath n plaster walls with rounded corners and elegant archways. Tasteful solid maple cabinets, slate kitchen floor/back splash-silestone counter , master bedroom/study and enchanting wrap-around balcony with mountain/:Pls see supplement on downtown/city/bay views. Inside you’ll find stainless steel Jenn-Air refrigerator with freezer, Fisher and Paykel double drawer dishwasher, GE Profile convection oven and microwave, GE Monogram oven/gas cook top, oil rubbed bronze fixture in bath, granite bath counter, Thomasville raised panel cabinets, with remodeled bathrooms including marble double sink vanity upstairs, restoration hardware, granite tile floor, and much more. This captivating enchanting home has timeless charm and yet vintage period nuances.
I haven’t been in the property but at “first glance” I can see (by photo no):
1: New mud wall texture, rounded corners, baseboards $5K (mat’ls & labor for entire interior [may be understated to unk plaster repair])
2: New stucco, min 20×20 saltillo tile, vinyl windows, large corner smoke “low e” custom picture window, poss matching enclosed ground-floor patio, poss landscaping $17,500 + (mat’ls & labor [whole house ext stucco])
4: Poss small custom window replacement $1500
3: New sod, saltillo sidewalk, and wrought iron refurbishment in Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 20 (appears to be orig solid wrought iron of bldg date era – refurbished) $5K (ALL int/ext WI refurb)
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 19, and 20: refinished hardwood floors (labor approx 1500 sf), sconces and wood plantation shutters $7500
10, 11, 12 and 13: New kitchen cabinets, slate countertop, backsplash, approx 8 x 22 travertine, dbl sink, faucet, dining lighting fixture ($39K mat’ls & labor)
10, 11 and 12: All new kitchen appls (bolded above). jp, since you are our “resident appliance lady,” why don’t you take a stab at this cost – I have no idea . . . lol.
14-15 and 19-20: light/ceiling fans $500 (installed)
16: new paneling/wainscoting, “vintage” tile flooring, 7 – 8′ vanity w/ solid marble top, 2 sinks, mirrors/medicine cabinets, lighting, fixtures, towel racks, poss new toilet/tub $20K (mat’ls + labor for flooring only)
17: new granite tub enclosure, tub, fixtures, towel ring, medicine cabinet, pedestal sink, toilet, vanity lighting, flooring $5K (mat’ls and labor for tub enclosure only – flooring not incl)
22. cabinets, shelving, flooring $1K (incl labor)
23, 24 and 25: Ext trim paint $500 (incl labor)
1, 16, 17, 22, 23 and 24: “restoration hardware” and fixtures – unknown cost (difficult and time-consuming to obtain correct items which may need refurbishing upon purchase)
Well, what do we have here as far as matl’s and partial labor (not incl kit appls)?
…(BG punching calculator…) $102,500 very conservative estimate
The $64M question here is, how much labor did the previous owners do themselves??
The lot is worth $500-$550K. Again I will say these recent buyers got a h@ll of a deal here!!
October 4, 2011 at 4:46 PM #730020ParticipantBG, I didn’t ask if the house got better, I asked if the street got better.
You said $100k+ for materials, but then add price include labor in your list of upgrades. Based on my personal experienced, labor is at least = the cost of materials. So, $100k+ in materials would be ~$200k installed. Do you still stand behind this statement?
[quote=bearishgurl]
I wouldn’t be surprised if the 2003 owners sunk 100K+ into the property in materials alone in ADDITION to labor costs and sales costs.[/quote]BTW, you grossly over estimate the cost of the kitchen, considering how small it is and the amount of cabinets. With that amount of cabinets, I would say the cost of the kitchen should be around $20k include labor. $39k would be the cost of a kitchen 2x as big and use Cherry not Maple.
I can’t comment on the windows, since I don’t know exactly how many windows they replaced. You seem to know, may I ask how?
Also, we all can agree 2003 price is not that great of a price. We’re talking about 2000-2001 as the price to shoot for. I’m sure you also know this and ignore it, but you NEVER recoup 100% of the remodel cost. Even HGTV, who are as bullish as you can get, do not claim 100% return for remodeling.
October 4, 2011 at 4:53 PM #730021briansd1
Guest[quote=bearishgurl]
I wouldn’t be surprised if the 2003 owners sunk 100K+ into the property in materials alone in ADDITION to labor costs and sales costs.[/quote]Who cares what the seller spent?
Oftentimes, a seller’s treasure is a buyer’s teardown. So what the seller spent to the acquire the good is meaningless to a potential buyer.
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Properties or Areas’ is closed to new topics and replies.