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, 2 months ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 7, 2011 at 4:02 AM #730223October 7, 2011 at 4:14 AM #730224
CA renter
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN]I don’t think anyone is disputing that there are places that only see 2003 price thus far. You don’t have to be coastal or expensive/desirable like PL to see that. I’ve shown the same thing happening in Mira Mesa and 4S Ranch. These two are far from PL in term of desirability scale, especially Mira Mesa. Yet, I’m not seeing too many that close below 2003 price as well. I’m sure there are other in land areas that are not as desirable as Point Loma that also are not seeing price much below 2003 price as well. So, I don’t think being coastal or being ultra desirable have much to do with it.[/quote]
AN, I don’t know how many tracts in MM were built in the last decade but most of 4S was built in 2003 or AFTER. Most of those housing units are/were recent “bubble-era” purchases as new construction or short sale/REO.
Lower-priced housing areas have been selling better than higher-priced housing areas since lending standards have been much tighter (approx 2007-2008).
[quote=AN]Especially since I just shown a property in Del Mar that just closed at 2000 price and it’s not a fixer, not built during the bubble, and are >$1M. I think Del Mar is very desirable. Del Mar have ~6700 household and Point Loma have ~7100 household. Both Point Loma and Del Mar have about 50 something NOD/NOT/REO. So, just because an area is ultra desirable and have low NOD/NOT/REO doesn’t mean you can’t get 2000 pricing.[/quote]
Again, that (large) DM unit you posted here is a (less-desirable) PUD heavily encumbered by an (expensive) HOA. I would surmise that what few remaining vacant lots (on which to build an SFR in DM) cost just as much as that PUD (with or without utilities), if not more.
AN, where are you getting the data that 50 properties in both 92106 and 92014 are currently in distress? And are these primarily condos or SFRs?
Del Mar has always been more dense that 92106. It is comprised of 37.5% multifamily units:
For 92014
Structure Type Number Percent California Avg. National Avg.
Total housing units 6,750 100.00 % – –
1-unit, detached
4,217 62.47 % 56.35 % 60.37 %
1-unit, attached
1,106 16.39 % 7.63 % 5.68 %
2 units
148 2.19 % 2.68 % 4.29 %
3 or 4 units
138 2.04 % 5.71 % 4.72 %
5 to 9 units
277 4.10 % 5.92 % 4.66 %
10 to 19 units
277 4.10 % 5.07 % 3.99 %
20 or more units
580 8.59 % 11.98 % 8.59 %
Mobile home
7 0.10 % 4.40 % 7.49 %
Boat, RV, van, etc.
0 0.00 % 0.26 % 0.22 %see: http://zipatlas.com/us/ca/san-diego/zip-92014.htm#structures
Point Loma (92106) is comprised of 28% multifamily units:
For 92106
Structure Type Number Percent California Avg. National Avg.
Total housing units 7,169 100.00 % – –
1-unit, detached
5,165 72.05 % 56.35 % 60.37 %
1-unit, attached
188 2.62 % 7.63 % 5.68 %
2 units
120 1.67 % 2.68 % 4.29 %
3 or 4 units
427 5.96 % 5.71 % 4.72 %
5 to 9 units
428 5.97 % 5.92 % 4.66 %
10 to 19 units
328 4.58 % 5.07 % 3.99 %
20 or more units
452 6.30 % 11.98 % 8.59 %
Mobile home
9 0.13 % 4.40 % 7.49 %
Boat, RV, van, etc.
52 0.73 % 0.26 % 0.see: http://zipatlas.com/us/ca/san-diego/zip-92106.htm#structures
[quote=AN]In essence, what you’re really saying is, some areas, you just can’t get good darn deals, and I agree with that. I just disagree with the point that all of those areas are ultra desirable…[/quote]
To each his own . . . you still appear to be “fixated” on the notion that current average sales prices should reflect certain (arbitrary) years’ average sold comparables in EVERY area and it just isn’t so and will never be so. SD County housing stock is too diverse and each of its areas’ is “desirable” to certain subsets of buyers and owners spend a LOT more $$ rehabbing properties in historically “desirable” areas. Buyers with a lot of cash often gravitate to areas which will afford them more privacy, convenience and views (read: “custom” homes on larger-than-std lots). This type of privacy usually can’t be found in a typical tract development.[/quote]
BG,
Many of us say that prices should be at or below 2001 levels because that is when the natural peak of the RE market morphed into the credit-fueled housing bubble. ALL properties were affected by this, and the only reason certain areas haven’t been hit as hard yet is because the Federal Reserve and the government intervened when they realized that “subprime” was NOT contained. The first phase of the bubble collapse (most recent bubble buyers with absolutely no financial buffer/subprime) was allowed to play out almost entirely. But when the declines kept rolling into the more desirable areas and the “prime” mortgage market, the Fed/govt slammed on the brakes.
These declines roll from the least desirable areas into the most desirable areas, and the collapse of the housing bubble was temporarily halted by foreclosure moratoriums, artificially low interest rates, government-backed loans (at rates no private lender would be willing to accept), tax credits, “free” housing for home debtors, etc. Take away all those props, and you’d see the rest of the inventory go to pre-bubble levels very quickly.
The low prices are not caused by foreclosures — the foreclosures simply speed up the process of unwinding all the sales and prices that occurred during the bubble. The lower prices are a result of what new buyers are willing and able to pay. They are caused by the fact that nobody could have afforded the prices they paid for housing during the bubble without the constant feed of new NINJA loans. When those loans stopped, the entire pyramid (all the way to the top of the RE market — including coastal areas) began to collapse.
Prices are not determined by what sellers want, but by what NEW buyers are willing and able to spend.
October 7, 2011 at 10:16 AM #730247an
Participant[quote=CA renter]Right, again.
Here’s one in La Costa that’s been on the market for quite awhile. The ocean/lagoon view in real life is far better than what you see in these pictures, too. Priced below it’s 2001 price.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Carlsbad/3221-Piragua-St-92009/home/3868595%5B/quote%5D
Now that’s what I would call a good darn deal. $175k above its 1989 price. It sold for $825k in 1989, so, it probably was desirable back then too.October 7, 2011 at 10:24 AM #730248sdrealtor
ParticipantThe difference between then and now is things have changed alot around here. Back then a house like that was special. Now the view is but the house is substandard for the price range. I remember looking for 4,000 sq ft homes for a client around 2001 and there not being many to choose from. Now they are on 3 out of 4 corners around here. Its still a nice view location but there are nicer houses all over the place around here now. This place is very different than it was in 1989 and even than it was in 2001.
October 7, 2011 at 11:23 AM #730256ParticipantI’m sure things have changed a lot. But in my eyes, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a good deal. How much does a lot that size with that view cost? Add in the cost of building a 4k sq-ft house. I personally think this might be a unique opportunity to buy these kind of deals. They over built 4000 sq-ft house in the area, which drive down the cost, but I think that’s temporary. In the long run, the land and view will dictate the trend line. You can upgrade the house to modern standard, but you can’t add a view.
October 7, 2011 at 11:41 AM #730259jpinpb
ParticipantI agree w/AN. I think that place is a good deal for location and you can always upgrade, but you can’t change the location.
It would be nice to see more 2000 pricing in the more desireable area. Those are the great deals. Unfortunately, I have not come across very many. Maybe there will be more down the road. For now, I guess I’m just glad to see they are at least down to 2003 pricing or so.
October 7, 2011 at 12:06 PM #730264ParticipantI agree it is a good deal also, its just not what people are looking for now in that price range. Back then there wasnt much like that so it warranted a much bigger premium than it does today when you can find nicer, newer properties with great views in the same area for lower net costs of having to redo that one.
October 7, 2011 at 4:33 PM #730285Participant[quote=sdrealtor]I agree it is a good deal also, its just not what people are looking for now in that price range. Back then there wasnt much like that so it warranted a much bigger premium than it does today when you can find nicer, newer properties with great views in the same area for lower net costs of having to redo that one.[/quote]
Not sure how many newer properties have views and lots like that. We’re pretty familiar with the general area, and most of those lots (size and view) have been built out for decades.
On one hand, you say that things are “different here” so prices should be higher than 10+ years ago, now you’re saying that things are “different here” so prices should be lower than they were 10+ years ago. You can’t have it both ways.
October 7, 2011 at 4:46 PM #730287ParticipantYou can get views like that in the Bay Collection, La Costa Ridge and La Costa Oaks for about 1.2M to 1.3M these days. Most of that lot is unusable. The house is functionally obselete by todays standards. Rebuilding a nice new 4,000 sq ft modern house on that location would cost close to 500K.
Things are different here on the lower on middle end which hasnt changed much in terms of supply. The cost of entry has gone up. The same cant be said for high end homes where supply is way up as is quality. SO yes you can have it both ways depending upon which segment of the market you are looking at.
October 7, 2011 at 8:52 PM #730293ParticipantCheck out 3211 Corte Paloma in 92009. Could have picked that up at trustee sale for 1.1M or now for about 1.3M to 1.4M. Just as big a usable lot. Much bigger nicer house with amazing view comparable to Piragua. If you buy Piragua for $1M you couldnt get close to this for another 300 to 400K.
October 7, 2011 at 9:03 PM #730294bearishgurl
Participant[quote=CA renter] . . . We are now in the process of “upgrading” pretty much everything our new house, and are not thinking at all about resale value, since we plan on staying here for the rest of our lives (God be willing). The whole notion of housing being an “investment” is what got us into all this housing trouble in the first place.[/quote]
Of course you want to make your recently-purchased property exactly as you want it for your daily needs, CAR. Especially if you bought it a bit under market. HOWEVER, I DO think it is financially foolish to install a +/- $3K “gourmet range” into an (avg) $350K property in a working-class neighborhood, under ANY circumstances, for example. Perhaps in an (avg) $550K neighborhood, it might be “worth it” to do so, if the homeowner stays long enough to enjoy it themselves.
But if you were planning to sell (or rent your property out) in less than 3 years from now (as I am), would you STILL invest the kind of $$ in it that you are currently spending??
October 7, 2011 at 9:42 PM #730296Participant[quote=bearishgurl]Of course you want to make your recently-purchased property exactly as you want it for your daily needs, CAR. Especially if you bought it a bit under market. HOWEVER, I DO think it is financially foolish to install a +/- $3K “gourmet range” into an (avg) $350K property in a working-class neighborhood, under ANY circumstances, for example. Perhaps in an (avg) $550K neighborhood, it might be “worth it” to do so, if the homeowner stays long enough to enjoy it themselves.
But if you were planning to sell (or rent your property out) in less than 3 years from now (as I am), would you STILL invest the kind of $$ in it that you are currently spending??[/quote]
With that logic, those who live in a working-class neighborhood shouldn’t be driving luxury cars either. A $3k range is nothing when a luxury car can be easily over $40k. I guess they all should be driving old beat up cars or some nondescript econobox by your logic. $3k is less than 1% of the house. If you truly love to cook (which would be one reason why you would want an expensive kitchen appliance), you can cook everyday and brown bag. That’s $5-10 saved per person. A couple, that’s $10-20 saved a day. It adds up to $1300-5200/year. That would be more than enough to cover the cost of the range.You make it seems like $3k is a lot of money. It truly is not.
October 7, 2011 at 10:06 PM #730299ParticipantHere’s one in Rancho Santa Fe: http://www.redfin.com/CA/Del-Mar/15511-Churchill-Downs-92014/home/4451394
Currently listed at $1.05M. Sold for $800k in 1989. I would think RSF is a pretty desirable area/zip code. 10k+ lot is pretty decent for 3400 sq-ft house. I would guess this would would sold for around $1M in 2000-2001. This is what I would call a darn good deal.
Or how about this one: http://www.redfin.com/CA/Rancho-Santa-Fe/Avenida-Arroyo-Pasajero-92091/home/4191037, sold for $50k less than its 1998 price. That’s what I would call a darn good deal too.
October 7, 2011 at 10:46 PM #730302Participant[quote=AN] . . . You make it seems like $3k is a lot of money. It truly is not.[/quote]
If you’re going to install an appliance like that and use it yourself for 10-20 years, it might be worth it to YOU but don’t count on recovering any portion of its purchase price in a $350K (avg) neighborhood. You don’t need an ultra-expensive range to prepare your lunch to take to work. You simply microwave the lunch at work, if needed, as I did every day for 25+ years.
October 7, 2011 at 11:36 PM #730304Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter] . . . We are now in the process of “upgrading” pretty much everything our new house, and are not thinking at all about resale value, since we plan on staying here for the rest of our lives (God be willing). The whole notion of housing being an “investment” is what got us into all this housing trouble in the first place.[/quote]
Of course you want to make your recently-purchased property exactly as you want it for your daily needs, CAR. Especially if you bought it a bit under market. HOWEVER, I DO think it is financially foolish to install a +/- $3K “gourmet range” into an (avg) $350K property in a working-class neighborhood, under ANY circumstances, for example. Perhaps in an (avg) $550K neighborhood, it might be “worth it” to do so, if the homeowner stays long enough to enjoy it themselves.
But if you were planning to sell (or rent your property out) in less than 3 years from now (as I am), would you STILL invest the kind of $$ in it that you are currently spending??[/quote]
I’m not a chef, so wouldn’t spend $3,000 on a range under any circumstances. 😉
But, yes, if I were really into cooking (or steam showers, or high-end refrigerators, etc.), I would spend the money without any expectation of getting any kind of return on the expense if/when selling. Like Brian and AN said, the next person might not even like what I put in there. The key is to do what’s right for oneself. Spend money on things that will enhance your life and that you think are worth it for personal need or enjoyment, and don’t spend money on things that are unimportant or unnecessary.
For example, we are buying our house during the tail end of the bubble (IMHO), and expect it to lose about $200K over the next few years. It doesn’t matter what we spend on it in the meantime; we expect to see the same $200K price decline no matter what we do.
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Properties or Areas’ is closed to new topics and replies.