Price movement over 3 years in certain RSF and Bay Area homes

[raptorduck]

The content of this post has been deleted at the request of the original poster.

[Coronita]

For me, I haven't noticed any price in my particular hood of the Bay Area. In fact,  we still get mailed closed offers from neighbors selling well above last year's asking price from agents. (sorry editted, poor engrish on my part)

guess there are too many google gzillionaires 🙂

 

Seriously though, employment is pretty strong in NorCal right now.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Dukehorn]

So is the yahoo layoff just an isolated blip? The Bay Area is pretty diversified but a recession will impact all the companies (Cisco, Apple etc.), and you have to figure the first thing to go in a a downturn is advertising (so google as well).

[Coronita]

Yahoo is one screwed up company. (Don't ask me how I know, but I do..) In a perfect economy, they would still have trouble. In fact, if they laidoff 1/2 of the employees, I don't see that the company would suffer.

As far as the bay area. There's plenty of startups small and large, and plenty of inflow vc money into these startups. Where else is vc going to invest in these days?

Doing a comparable job search on something like hotjob (not that hotjob is that great)

i get 64 hits here in san diego

I get 640+ hits in the bay area.

 

Which tech industry in which location will evaporate first? You tell me.

 

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Dukehorn]

Yeah, I know yahoo has its issues, but AMD is having problems especially after acquiring ATI. I guess the query is can the start-ups absorb the layoffs if a recession hits.

[Coronita]

I've noticed in the past, the economies of norcal and socal often move tangential. When commercial tech is hot, non-tech isn't and vice versus. In the last major recession here in socal, mainly due to defense spending cutbacks, then spilling over int services such as RE, that same period, bay area was just fine.

During the dotcom bust, socal economy was doing fine (hence the migration from nor cal to so cal). I have a feeling tha we'll start to se a migration back from so cal to nor cal.

Honestly, I contemplated this myself. There aren't that many great opportunities natively in SoCal for what I do. And while I'm really well compensated at my current position and responsibilities, all good things must end at some point- one bad quarter, one bad relationship, anything random..poof. it's over.

So anticipating plan B is necessary, my options are really to start a company, work remotely for NorCal company, or move back to norCal in case something should happen to my current employment.

What I don't get is why people/companies here in SD have such a hard time understanding that there is nothing wrong with switching positions every 2-3 years. You sort of have to in order to stay current if your employer pigeon hole's you into a menial task. Employers want what is current. At the same time, i see it ironic that several down here frown on folks that move around or don't let people grow into that new role. In the bay area, you had no choice, because companies/positions come and go, the only thing constant was your skills, knowledge, and your relationships you build with people. So part of working in the bay area for me was just being use to moving around. Down here, layoffs are a big deal, because the markets not as fluid.

Oh well. Fortunately, having a place in both areas will make realization of plan B (if needed) more possible..which is why I tell people never to sell a primary home in the bay area. It was and always will be tech capital, irrespective of what happens in the rest of the world. If some ideas move overseas, some new idea will start up in the bay area. Has been that way, always will be.

The only real reason why i even moved back here was I lost a coin toss with the significant other. But the significant other is thinking about plan B these days too, as it seems like one of the major employer's growth is starting to stagnant.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[raptorduck]

As to the industry comments, I tend to agree with fat_lazy well placed comments.

While the Biotech industry in SD remains strong (it is the 3rd largest such market in the US behind the Bay Area and Boston area), telecom and a few other tech industries have suffered in recent years. Silicon Valley is just very different from any other market and generates more VC capital than the next 10 markets combined yada yada, so you can’t really compare it with other markets.

But I don’t know what that really predicts about housing prices, other than any drop here will be less severe. But any increase here is more severe. We are not immune. The outlying areas of the Bay Area (East Bay on the other side of the East Bay hills/680, far South Bay south of San Jose etc) are getting hit as hard as SD is. The Penninsula (where Los Altos/Los Altos Hills/Atherton/Hillsbouroug/Portola Valley/Woodsid are) stay strong because there is still enough $$ with buyers who don’t want a long commute or work at Google in Mountain View. But in SD, I would say that CV is holding its own vs other areas for the same reasons, albeit on a smaller scale.

I noticed RSF has a lot of out of town/out of country owners, which makes that analysis much more difficult.

In other words, . . . hell I dunno.

[raptorduck]

Right you are again Fat_lazy. Having looked at well over 100 homes in both markets this past year your point could not ring more true.

I have to beg my wife to not compare what you can buy for the $$ here vs. SD.

To say you can buy twice the home in SD is not to tell the whole story. You can buy twice the square footage, twice the lot size, twice the quality, 3 times the amenities, 1/10 the age, 10 times the weather, 1/3 the commute, the same quality of school, 5 times the beach, and 1/2 the stress for the same $$ in SD as you can in the Bay Area.

Really, what I am considering in SD (RSF mind you), were it located in Los Altos Hills, for example, would cost 3 times the price.

[raptorduck]

Right you are again Fat_lazy. Having looked at well over 100 homes in both markets this past year your point could not ring more true.

I have to beg my wife to not compare what you can buy for the $$ here vs. SD.

To say you can buy twice the home in SD is not to tell the whole story. You can buy twice the square footage, twice the lot size, twice the quality, 3 times the amenities, 1/10 the age, 10 times the weather, 1/3 the commute, the same quality of school, 5 times the beach, and 1/2 the stress for the same $$ in SD as you can in the Bay Area.

Really, what I am considering in SD (RSF mind you), were it located in Los Altos Hills, for example, would cost 3 times the price.

[raptorduck]

Right you are again Fat_lazy. Having looked at well over 100 homes in both markets this past year your point could not ring more true.

I have to beg my wife to not compare what you can buy for the $$ here vs. SD.

To say you can buy twice the home in SD is not to tell the whole story. You can buy twice the square footage, twice the lot size, twice the quality, 3 times the amenities, 1/10 the age, 10 times the weather, 1/3 the commute, the same quality of school, 5 times the beach, and 1/2 the stress for the same $$ in SD as you can in the Bay Area.

Really, what I am considering in SD (RSF mind you), were it located in Los Altos Hills, for example, would cost 3 times the price.

[raptorduck]

Right you are again Fat_lazy. Having looked at well over 100 homes in both markets this past year your point could not ring more true.

I have to beg my wife to not compare what you can buy for the $$ here vs. SD.

To say you can buy twice the home in SD is not to tell the whole story. You can buy twice the square footage, twice the lot size, twice the quality, 3 times the amenities, 1/10 the age, 10 times the weather, 1/3 the commute, the same quality of school, 5 times the beach, and 1/2 the stress for the same $$ in SD as you can in the Bay Area.

Really, what I am considering in SD (RSF mind you), were it located in Los Altos Hills, for example, would cost 3 times the price.

[raptorduck]

Right you are again Fat_lazy. Having looked at well over 100 homes in both markets this past year your point could not ring more true.

I have to beg my wife to not compare what you can buy for the $$ here vs. SD.

To say you can buy twice the home in SD is not to tell the whole story. You can buy twice the square footage, twice the lot size, twice the quality, 3 times the amenities, 1/10 the age, 10 times the weather, 1/3 the commute, the same quality of school, 5 times the beach, and 1/2 the stress for the same $$ in SD as you can in the Bay Area.

Really, what I am considering in SD (RSF mind you), were it located in Los Altos Hills, for example, would cost 3 times the price.

[raptorduck]

As to the industry comments, I tend to agree with fat_lazy well placed comments.

While the Biotech industry in SD remains strong (it is the 3rd largest such market in the US behind the Bay Area and Boston area), telecom and a few other tech industries have suffered in recent years. Silicon Valley is just very different from any other market and generates more VC capital than the next 10 markets combined yada yada, so you can’t really compare it with other markets.

But I don’t know what that really predicts about housing prices, other than any drop here will be less severe. But any increase here is more severe. We are not immune. The outlying areas of the Bay Area (East Bay on the other side of the East Bay hills/680, far South Bay south of San Jose etc) are getting hit as hard as SD is. The Penninsula (where Los Altos/Los Altos Hills/Atherton/Hillsbouroug/Portola Valley/Woodsid are) stay strong because there is still enough $$ with buyers who don’t want a long commute or work at Google in Mountain View. But in SD, I would say that CV is holding its own vs other areas for the same reasons, albeit on a smaller scale.

I noticed RSF has a lot of out of town/out of country owners, which makes that analysis much more difficult.

In other words, . . . hell I dunno.

[raptorduck]

As to the industry comments, I tend to agree with fat_lazy well placed comments.

While the Biotech industry in SD remains strong (it is the 3rd largest such market in the US behind the Bay Area and Boston area), telecom and a few other tech industries have suffered in recent years. Silicon Valley is just very different from any other market and generates more VC capital than the next 10 markets combined yada yada, so you can’t really compare it with other markets.

But I don’t know what that really predicts about housing prices, other than any drop here will be less severe. But any increase here is more severe. We are not immune. The outlying areas of the Bay Area (East Bay on the other side of the East Bay hills/680, far South Bay south of San Jose etc) are getting hit as hard as SD is. The Penninsula (where Los Altos/Los Altos Hills/Atherton/Hillsbouroug/Portola Valley/Woodsid are) stay strong because there is still enough $$ with buyers who don’t want a long commute or work at Google in Mountain View. But in SD, I would say that CV is holding its own vs other areas for the same reasons, albeit on a smaller scale.

I noticed RSF has a lot of out of town/out of country owners, which makes that analysis much more difficult.

In other words, . . . hell I dunno.

[raptorduck]

As to the industry comments, I tend to agree with fat_lazy well placed comments.

While the Biotech industry in SD remains strong (it is the 3rd largest such market in the US behind the Bay Area and Boston area), telecom and a few other tech industries have suffered in recent years. Silicon Valley is just very different from any other market and generates more VC capital than the next 10 markets combined yada yada, so you can’t really compare it with other markets.

But I don’t know what that really predicts about housing prices, other than any drop here will be less severe. But any increase here is more severe. We are not immune. The outlying areas of the Bay Area (East Bay on the other side of the East Bay hills/680, far South Bay south of San Jose etc) are getting hit as hard as SD is. The Penninsula (where Los Altos/Los Altos Hills/Atherton/Hillsbouroug/Portola Valley/Woodsid are) stay strong because there is still enough $$ with buyers who don’t want a long commute or work at Google in Mountain View. But in SD, I would say that CV is holding its own vs other areas for the same reasons, albeit on a smaller scale.

I noticed RSF has a lot of out of town/out of country owners, which makes that analysis much more difficult.

In other words, . . . hell I dunno.

[raptorduck]

As to the industry comments, I tend to agree with fat_lazy well placed comments.

While the Biotech industry in SD remains strong (it is the 3rd largest such market in the US behind the Bay Area and Boston area), telecom and a few other tech industries have suffered in recent years. Silicon Valley is just very different from any other market and generates more VC capital than the next 10 markets combined yada yada, so you can’t really compare it with other markets.

But I don’t know what that really predicts about housing prices, other than any drop here will be less severe. But any increase here is more severe. We are not immune. The outlying areas of the Bay Area (East Bay on the other side of the East Bay hills/680, far South Bay south of San Jose etc) are getting hit as hard as SD is. The Penninsula (where Los Altos/Los Altos Hills/Atherton/Hillsbouroug/Portola Valley/Woodsid are) stay strong because there is still enough $$ with buyers who don’t want a long commute or work at Google in Mountain View. But in SD, I would say that CV is holding its own vs other areas for the same reasons, albeit on a smaller scale.

I noticed RSF has a lot of out of town/out of country owners, which makes that analysis much more difficult.

In other words, . . . hell I dunno.

[Coronita]

I've noticed in the past, the economies of norcal and socal often move tangential. When commercial tech is hot, non-tech isn't and vice versus. In the last major recession here in socal, mainly due to defense spending cutbacks, then spilling over int services such as RE, that same period, bay area was just fine.

During the dotcom bust, socal economy was doing fine (hence the migration from nor cal to so cal). I have a feeling tha we'll start to se a migration back from so cal to nor cal.

Honestly, I contemplated this myself. There aren't that many great opportunities natively in SoCal for what I do. And while I'm really well compensated at my current position and responsibilities, all good things must end at some point- one bad quarter, one bad relationship, anything random..poof. it's over.

So anticipating plan B is necessary, my options are really to start a company, work remotely for NorCal company, or move back to norCal in case something should happen to my current employment.

What I don't get is why people/companies here in SD have such a hard time understanding that there is nothing wrong with switching positions every 2-3 years. You sort of have to in order to stay current if your employer pigeon hole's you into a menial task. Employers want what is current. At the same time, i see it ironic that several down here frown on folks that move around or don't let people grow into that new role. In the bay area, you had no choice, because companies/positions come and go, the only thing constant was your skills, knowledge, and your relationships you build with people. So part of working in the bay area for me was just being use to moving around. Down here, layoffs are a big deal, because the markets not as fluid.

Oh well. Fortunately, having a place in both areas will make realization of plan B (if needed) more possible..which is why I tell people never to sell a primary home in the bay area. It was and always will be tech capital, irrespective of what happens in the rest of the world. If some ideas move overseas, some new idea will start up in the bay area. Has been that way, always will be.

The only real reason why i even moved back here was I lost a coin toss with the significant other. But the significant other is thinking about plan B these days too, as it seems like one of the major employer's growth is starting to stagnant.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

I've noticed in the past, the economies of norcal and socal often move tangential. When commercial tech is hot, non-tech isn't and vice versus. In the last major recession here in socal, mainly due to defense spending cutbacks, then spilling over int services such as RE, that same period, bay area was just fine.

During the dotcom bust, socal economy was doing fine (hence the migration from nor cal to so cal). I have a feeling tha we'll start to se a migration back from so cal to nor cal.

Honestly, I contemplated this myself. There aren't that many great opportunities natively in SoCal for what I do. And while I'm really well compensated at my current position and responsibilities, all good things must end at some point- one bad quarter, one bad relationship, anything random..poof. it's over.

So anticipating plan B is necessary, my options are really to start a company, work remotely for NorCal company, or move back to norCal in case something should happen to my current employment.

What I don't get is why people/companies here in SD have such a hard time understanding that there is nothing wrong with switching positions every 2-3 years. You sort of have to in order to stay current if your employer pigeon hole's you into a menial task. Employers want what is current. At the same time, i see it ironic that several down here frown on folks that move around or don't let people grow into that new role. In the bay area, you had no choice, because companies/positions come and go, the only thing constant was your skills, knowledge, and your relationships you build with people. So part of working in the bay area for me was just being use to moving around. Down here, layoffs are a big deal, because the markets not as fluid.

Oh well. Fortunately, having a place in both areas will make realization of plan B (if needed) more possible..which is why I tell people never to sell a primary home in the bay area. It was and always will be tech capital, irrespective of what happens in the rest of the world. If some ideas move overseas, some new idea will start up in the bay area. Has been that way, always will be.

The only real reason why i even moved back here was I lost a coin toss with the significant other. But the significant other is thinking about plan B these days too, as it seems like one of the major employer's growth is starting to stagnant.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

I've noticed in the past, the economies of norcal and socal often move tangential. When commercial tech is hot, non-tech isn't and vice versus. In the last major recession here in socal, mainly due to defense spending cutbacks, then spilling over int services such as RE, that same period, bay area was just fine.

During the dotcom bust, socal economy was doing fine (hence the migration from nor cal to so cal). I have a feeling tha we'll start to se a migration back from so cal to nor cal.

Honestly, I contemplated this myself. There aren't that many great opportunities natively in SoCal for what I do. And while I'm really well compensated at my current position and responsibilities, all good things must end at some point- one bad quarter, one bad relationship, anything random..poof. it's over.

So anticipating plan B is necessary, my options are really to start a company, work remotely for NorCal company, or move back to norCal in case something should happen to my current employment.

What I don't get is why people/companies here in SD have such a hard time understanding that there is nothing wrong with switching positions every 2-3 years. You sort of have to in order to stay current if your employer pigeon hole's you into a menial task. Employers want what is current. At the same time, i see it ironic that several down here frown on folks that move around or don't let people grow into that new role. In the bay area, you had no choice, because companies/positions come and go, the only thing constant was your skills, knowledge, and your relationships you build with people. So part of working in the bay area for me was just being use to moving around. Down here, layoffs are a big deal, because the markets not as fluid.

Oh well. Fortunately, having a place in both areas will make realization of plan B (if needed) more possible..which is why I tell people never to sell a primary home in the bay area. It was and always will be tech capital, irrespective of what happens in the rest of the world. If some ideas move overseas, some new idea will start up in the bay area. Has been that way, always will be.

The only real reason why i even moved back here was I lost a coin toss with the significant other. But the significant other is thinking about plan B these days too, as it seems like one of the major employer's growth is starting to stagnant.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

I've noticed in the past, the economies of norcal and socal often move tangential. When commercial tech is hot, non-tech isn't and vice versus. In the last major recession here in socal, mainly due to defense spending cutbacks, then spilling over int services such as RE, that same period, bay area was just fine.

During the dotcom bust, socal economy was doing fine (hence the migration from nor cal to so cal). I have a feeling tha we'll start to se a migration back from so cal to nor cal.

Honestly, I contemplated this myself. There aren't that many great opportunities natively in SoCal for what I do. And while I'm really well compensated at my current position and responsibilities, all good things must end at some point- one bad quarter, one bad relationship, anything random..poof. it's over.

So anticipating plan B is necessary, my options are really to start a company, work remotely for NorCal company, or move back to norCal in case something should happen to my current employment.

What I don't get is why people/companies here in SD have such a hard time understanding that there is nothing wrong with switching positions every 2-3 years. You sort of have to in order to stay current if your employer pigeon hole's you into a menial task. Employers want what is current. At the same time, i see it ironic that several down here frown on folks that move around or don't let people grow into that new role. In the bay area, you had no choice, because companies/positions come and go, the only thing constant was your skills, knowledge, and your relationships you build with people. So part of working in the bay area for me was just being use to moving around. Down here, layoffs are a big deal, because the markets not as fluid.

Oh well. Fortunately, having a place in both areas will make realization of plan B (if needed) more possible..which is why I tell people never to sell a primary home in the bay area. It was and always will be tech capital, irrespective of what happens in the rest of the world. If some ideas move overseas, some new idea will start up in the bay area. Has been that way, always will be.

The only real reason why i even moved back here was I lost a coin toss with the significant other. But the significant other is thinking about plan B these days too, as it seems like one of the major employer's growth is starting to stagnant.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Dukehorn]

Yeah, I know yahoo has its issues, but AMD is having problems especially after acquiring ATI. I guess the query is can the start-ups absorb the layoffs if a recession hits.

[Dukehorn]

Yeah, I know yahoo has its issues, but AMD is having problems especially after acquiring ATI. I guess the query is can the start-ups absorb the layoffs if a recession hits.

[Dukehorn]

Yeah, I know yahoo has its issues, but AMD is having problems especially after acquiring ATI. I guess the query is can the start-ups absorb the layoffs if a recession hits.

[Dukehorn]

Yeah, I know yahoo has its issues, but AMD is having problems especially after acquiring ATI. I guess the query is can the start-ups absorb the layoffs if a recession hits.

[Coronita]

Yahoo is one screwed up company. (Don't ask me how I know, but I do..) In a perfect economy, they would still have trouble. In fact, if they laidoff 1/2 of the employees, I don't see that the company would suffer.

As far as the bay area. There's plenty of startups small and large, and plenty of inflow vc money into these startups. Where else is vc going to invest in these days?

Doing a comparable job search on something like hotjob (not that hotjob is that great)

i get 64 hits here in san diego

I get 640+ hits in the bay area.

 

Which tech industry in which location will evaporate first? You tell me.

 

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Yahoo is one screwed up company. (Don't ask me how I know, but I do..) In a perfect economy, they would still have trouble. In fact, if they laidoff 1/2 of the employees, I don't see that the company would suffer.

As far as the bay area. There's plenty of startups small and large, and plenty of inflow vc money into these startups. Where else is vc going to invest in these days?

Doing a comparable job search on something like hotjob (not that hotjob is that great)

i get 64 hits here in san diego

I get 640+ hits in the bay area.

 

Which tech industry in which location will evaporate first? You tell me.

 

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Yahoo is one screwed up company. (Don't ask me how I know, but I do..) In a perfect economy, they would still have trouble. In fact, if they laidoff 1/2 of the employees, I don't see that the company would suffer.

As far as the bay area. There's plenty of startups small and large, and plenty of inflow vc money into these startups. Where else is vc going to invest in these days?

Doing a comparable job search on something like hotjob (not that hotjob is that great)

i get 64 hits here in san diego

I get 640+ hits in the bay area.

 

Which tech industry in which location will evaporate first? You tell me.

 

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Yahoo is one screwed up company. (Don't ask me how I know, but I do..) In a perfect economy, they would still have trouble. In fact, if they laidoff 1/2 of the employees, I don't see that the company would suffer.

As far as the bay area. There's plenty of startups small and large, and plenty of inflow vc money into these startups. Where else is vc going to invest in these days?

Doing a comparable job search on something like hotjob (not that hotjob is that great)

i get 64 hits here in san diego

I get 640+ hits in the bay area.

 

Which tech industry in which location will evaporate first? You tell me.

 

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Dukehorn]

So is the yahoo layoff just an isolated blip? The Bay Area is pretty diversified but a recession will impact all the companies (Cisco, Apple etc.), and you have to figure the first thing to go in a a downturn is advertising (so google as well).

[Dukehorn]

So is the yahoo layoff just an isolated blip? The Bay Area is pretty diversified but a recession will impact all the companies (Cisco, Apple etc.), and you have to figure the first thing to go in a a downturn is advertising (so google as well).

[Dukehorn]

So is the yahoo layoff just an isolated blip? The Bay Area is pretty diversified but a recession will impact all the companies (Cisco, Apple etc.), and you have to figure the first thing to go in a a downturn is advertising (so google as well).

[Dukehorn]

So is the yahoo layoff just an isolated blip? The Bay Area is pretty diversified but a recession will impact all the companies (Cisco, Apple etc.), and you have to figure the first thing to go in a a downturn is advertising (so google as well).

[raptorduck]

Prices in my current neighborhood in San Jose have declined since I started looking to buy in the areas I mentioned. My own house has lost 10% of its value this past year. However, I am in a lower market ($1M give or take, more take these days) so my potential buyers are more impacted by the subprime crises.

In the Los Altos/Los Altos Hills higher end market, prices have not moved down very much. In Los Altos, they have actually stayed flat or gone up a little. In Los Altos Hills they have gone down for sure, but by maybe 5% overall. What you are seeing, is homes in LAH stay on the market a lot longer than Los Altos. That is becasue those homes are more expensive and “unique” than those in Los Altos. But, inventory is very low in both markets, which means that the really nice well priced homes are moving and getting multiple offers.

For you folks in SD, homes up here tend to be old and not updated so when you find one that is newer or updated, people act like they just saw a shooting star and quickly wish upon it with their checkbooks before it dissapears.

Homes that are very old, in bad locations, too agressively priced, odd, etc, however, are selling for as low as 90% of asking in these markets and sellers are having to drop prices on those, because buyers want the gems only in this market.

Many people in these markets up her can afford to hold out as sellers or carry more than one mortgage, which slows the drop in prices and keeps inventories relatively low.

While that sould also be true in RSF, it is not reflected in the market. RSF and LAH are both about the same size in population and median household income, yet RSF has 5 times as many houses on the market as LAH. In terms of nice houses (by my definition) RSF has 30 times as many “nice” houses for sale as LAH does right now.

[Coronita]

 For you folks in SD, homes up here tend to be old and not updated so when you find one that is newer or updated, people act like they just saw a shooting star and quickly wish upon it with their checkbooks before it dissapears.

 

Don't even get me started on this, especially homes in Cupertino and Palo Alto.

Seriously, the difference between price insanity here in SD and price insanity in the bay area is the former $1million buys you a nice stucco box about 10 years old around 2600sqft with a small backyard that will probably fall apart 10 years from the day you buy it. The latter will buy you a 2-3 bedroom 20 to 30+year hole in the wall, that has fallen apart, but nevertheless slapped together again by the previous owners.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

 For you folks in SD, homes up here tend to be old and not updated so when you find one that is newer or updated, people act like they just saw a shooting star and quickly wish upon it with their checkbooks before it dissapears.

 

Don't even get me started on this, especially homes in Cupertino and Palo Alto.

Seriously, the difference between price insanity here in SD and price insanity in the bay area is the former $1million buys you a nice stucco box about 10 years old around 2600sqft with a small backyard that will probably fall apart 10 years from the day you buy it. The latter will buy you a 2-3 bedroom 20 to 30+year hole in the wall, that has fallen apart, but nevertheless slapped together again by the previous owners.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

 For you folks in SD, homes up here tend to be old and not updated so when you find one that is newer or updated, people act like they just saw a shooting star and quickly wish upon it with their checkbooks before it dissapears.

 

Don't even get me started on this, especially homes in Cupertino and Palo Alto.

Seriously, the difference between price insanity here in SD and price insanity in the bay area is the former $1million buys you a nice stucco box about 10 years old around 2600sqft with a small backyard that will probably fall apart 10 years from the day you buy it. The latter will buy you a 2-3 bedroom 20 to 30+year hole in the wall, that has fallen apart, but nevertheless slapped together again by the previous owners.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

 For you folks in SD, homes up here tend to be old and not updated so when you find one that is newer or updated, people act like they just saw a shooting star and quickly wish upon it with their checkbooks before it dissapears.

 

Don't even get me started on this, especially homes in Cupertino and Palo Alto.

Seriously, the difference between price insanity here in SD and price insanity in the bay area is the former $1million buys you a nice stucco box about 10 years old around 2600sqft with a small backyard that will probably fall apart 10 years from the day you buy it. The latter will buy you a 2-3 bedroom 20 to 30+year hole in the wall, that has fallen apart, but nevertheless slapped together again by the previous owners.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

 For you folks in SD, homes up here tend to be old and not updated so when you find one that is newer or updated, people act like they just saw a shooting star and quickly wish upon it with their checkbooks before it dissapears.

 

Don't even get me started on this, especially homes in Cupertino and Palo Alto.

Seriously, the difference between price insanity here in SD and price insanity in the bay area is the former $1million buys you a nice stucco box about 10 years old around 2600sqft with a small backyard that will probably fall apart 10 years from the day you buy it. The latter will buy you a 2-3 bedroom 20 to 30+year hole in the wall, that has fallen apart, but nevertheless slapped together again by the previous owners.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[raptorduck]

Prices in my current neighborhood in San Jose have declined since I started looking to buy in the areas I mentioned. My own house has lost 10% of its value this past year. However, I am in a lower market ($1M give or take, more take these days) so my potential buyers are more impacted by the subprime crises.

In the Los Altos/Los Altos Hills higher end market, prices have not moved down very much. In Los Altos, they have actually stayed flat or gone up a little. In Los Altos Hills they have gone down for sure, but by maybe 5% overall. What you are seeing, is homes in LAH stay on the market a lot longer than Los Altos. That is becasue those homes are more expensive and “unique” than those in Los Altos. But, inventory is very low in both markets, which means that the really nice well priced homes are moving and getting multiple offers.

For you folks in SD, homes up here tend to be old and not updated so when you find one that is newer or updated, people act like they just saw a shooting star and quickly wish upon it with their checkbooks before it dissapears.

Homes that are very old, in bad locations, too agressively priced, odd, etc, however, are selling for as low as 90% of asking in these markets and sellers are having to drop prices on those, because buyers want the gems only in this market.

Many people in these markets up her can afford to hold out as sellers or carry more than one mortgage, which slows the drop in prices and keeps inventories relatively low.

While that sould also be true in RSF, it is not reflected in the market. RSF and LAH are both about the same size in population and median household income, yet RSF has 5 times as many houses on the market as LAH. In terms of nice houses (by my definition) RSF has 30 times as many “nice” houses for sale as LAH does right now.

[raptorduck]

Prices in my current neighborhood in San Jose have declined since I started looking to buy in the areas I mentioned. My own house has lost 10% of its value this past year. However, I am in a lower market ($1M give or take, more take these days) so my potential buyers are more impacted by the subprime crises.

In the Los Altos/Los Altos Hills higher end market, prices have not moved down very much. In Los Altos, they have actually stayed flat or gone up a little. In Los Altos Hills they have gone down for sure, but by maybe 5% overall. What you are seeing, is homes in LAH stay on the market a lot longer than Los Altos. That is becasue those homes are more expensive and “unique” than those in Los Altos. But, inventory is very low in both markets, which means that the really nice well priced homes are moving and getting multiple offers.

For you folks in SD, homes up here tend to be old and not updated so when you find one that is newer or updated, people act like they just saw a shooting star and quickly wish upon it with their checkbooks before it dissapears.

Homes that are very old, in bad locations, too agressively priced, odd, etc, however, are selling for as low as 90% of asking in these markets and sellers are having to drop prices on those, because buyers want the gems only in this market.

Many people in these markets up her can afford to hold out as sellers or carry more than one mortgage, which slows the drop in prices and keeps inventories relatively low.

While that sould also be true in RSF, it is not reflected in the market. RSF and LAH are both about the same size in population and median household income, yet RSF has 5 times as many houses on the market as LAH. In terms of nice houses (by my definition) RSF has 30 times as many “nice” houses for sale as LAH does right now.

[raptorduck]

Prices in my current neighborhood in San Jose have declined since I started looking to buy in the areas I mentioned. My own house has lost 10% of its value this past year. However, I am in a lower market ($1M give or take, more take these days) so my potential buyers are more impacted by the subprime crises.

In the Los Altos/Los Altos Hills higher end market, prices have not moved down very much. In Los Altos, they have actually stayed flat or gone up a little. In Los Altos Hills they have gone down for sure, but by maybe 5% overall. What you are seeing, is homes in LAH stay on the market a lot longer than Los Altos. That is becasue those homes are more expensive and “unique” than those in Los Altos. But, inventory is very low in both markets, which means that the really nice well priced homes are moving and getting multiple offers.

For you folks in SD, homes up here tend to be old and not updated so when you find one that is newer or updated, people act like they just saw a shooting star and quickly wish upon it with their checkbooks before it dissapears.

Homes that are very old, in bad locations, too agressively priced, odd, etc, however, are selling for as low as 90% of asking in these markets and sellers are having to drop prices on those, because buyers want the gems only in this market.

Many people in these markets up her can afford to hold out as sellers or carry more than one mortgage, which slows the drop in prices and keeps inventories relatively low.

While that sould also be true in RSF, it is not reflected in the market. RSF and LAH are both about the same size in population and median household income, yet RSF has 5 times as many houses on the market as LAH. In terms of nice houses (by my definition) RSF has 30 times as many “nice” houses for sale as LAH does right now.

[raptorduck]

Prices in my current neighborhood in San Jose have declined since I started looking to buy in the areas I mentioned. My own house has lost 10% of its value this past year. However, I am in a lower market ($1M give or take, more take these days) so my potential buyers are more impacted by the subprime crises.

In the Los Altos/Los Altos Hills higher end market, prices have not moved down very much. In Los Altos, they have actually stayed flat or gone up a little. In Los Altos Hills they have gone down for sure, but by maybe 5% overall. What you are seeing, is homes in LAH stay on the market a lot longer than Los Altos. That is becasue those homes are more expensive and “unique” than those in Los Altos. But, inventory is very low in both markets, which means that the really nice well priced homes are moving and getting multiple offers.

For you folks in SD, homes up here tend to be old and not updated so when you find one that is newer or updated, people act like they just saw a shooting star and quickly wish upon it with their checkbooks before it dissapears.

Homes that are very old, in bad locations, too agressively priced, odd, etc, however, are selling for as low as 90% of asking in these markets and sellers are having to drop prices on those, because buyers want the gems only in this market.

Many people in these markets up her can afford to hold out as sellers or carry more than one mortgage, which slows the drop in prices and keeps inventories relatively low.

While that sould also be true in RSF, it is not reflected in the market. RSF and LAH are both about the same size in population and median household income, yet RSF has 5 times as many houses on the market as LAH. In terms of nice houses (by my definition) RSF has 30 times as many “nice” houses for sale as LAH does right now.

[Coronita]

For me, I haven't noticed any price in my particular hood of the Bay Area. In fact,  we still get mailed closed offers from neighbors selling well above last year's asking price from agents. (sorry editted, poor engrish on my part)

guess there are too many google gzillionaires 🙂

 

Seriously though, employment is pretty strong in NorCal right now.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

For me, I haven't noticed any price in my particular hood of the Bay Area. In fact,  we still get mailed closed offers from neighbors selling well above last year's asking price from agents. (sorry editted, poor engrish on my part)

guess there are too many google gzillionaires 🙂

 

Seriously though, employment is pretty strong in NorCal right now.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

For me, I haven't noticed any price in my particular hood of the Bay Area. In fact,  we still get mailed closed offers from neighbors selling well above last year's asking price from agents. (sorry editted, poor engrish on my part)

guess there are too many google gzillionaires 🙂

 

Seriously though, employment is pretty strong in NorCal right now.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

For me, I haven't noticed any price in my particular hood of the Bay Area. In fact,  we still get mailed closed offers from neighbors selling well above last year's asking price from agents. (sorry editted, poor engrish on my part)

guess there are too many google gzillionaires 🙂

 

Seriously though, employment is pretty strong in NorCal right now.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[pfflyer]

Raptor,
I have been following your posts because we are in somewhat similar positions; although I am looking for a little less home than you need. My question involves categorizing these homes in price per sf. The land values vary widely in areas and lot sizes as well. I have been trying to get approximate land values (per sf) for these areas and then break out the homes in price per sf. While still very unscientific, it allows you to compare quality of build between two homes more realistically. Have you attempted anything similar or are you locked into an area already (FBR?)

[raptorduck]

I have. In fact, I have done all kinds of different comparisons: price/sf for lot, house, build quality, bedrooms, size of garage, amenities/upgrades/finishes etc, schools, angle vs sun, attractiveness of neighbors, you name it. It is the nerd in me.

I just picked $/sf for size as a convenient way to compare these homes. It is very hard to compare homes in different neighborhoods in terms of price, let alone towns. It is easier to compare FBR homes to other FBR homes or Cielo to Cielo etc in terms of price.

As for quality, that is much easier to do. I have referred to a house up here that is over 6,000sf and under $5m, which makes it very very cheap for the size as that price usually gets you 4,000-5,000sf and that size usually costs over $6m-$8m due to >5k sf being so rare here. But the build quality of the house is very low, lot very odd shapped, location horrible (on top of a major freeway, literally), and design a boring box.

Homes in Cielo also vary a bit in build quality. The huge one above is not horrible build quality and design, but it is lower than any other house I have seen there and some have outstanding build quality. Santaluz seems to have very high build quality. FBR, though older also has very high build quality. The covenant seems to vary quite a bit as well. And I am speaking of build quality, not finishes (ie. fully loaded vs. spartin).

The lot sizes of the homes I listed above are generally around 1-2 acres, except for Los Altos, where they run .25-.5 acres. Indeed, homes in Meadows Del Mar in CV are about as expensive as RSF and Santaluz in $/sf or more so, but the lots are .5 acres or less for the most part. What you loose in lot size, you gain in commute and other conveniences.

Alas, I prefer that large lot for privacy. My current lot is a whopping 4,000sf with a 2,600sf 4br house on it. Not only can I see my neighbor’s house, I can hear him breathing, burping, sneezing, an snoring. At least it is a corner lot and he is a good neighbor, but I want and need as far away from that as possible.

And at 18 yrs old, it is considered a newer home up here. Go figure. It is about the exact kind of house and neighborhood you would find in some older parts of CV. In fact, I bought it while I lived in CV and did so because it was the only neighborhood up here that made me feel like I was still in CV.

[raptorduck]

I have. In fact, I have done all kinds of different comparisons: price/sf for lot, house, build quality, bedrooms, size of garage, amenities/upgrades/finishes etc, schools, angle vs sun, attractiveness of neighbors, you name it. It is the nerd in me.

I just picked $/sf for size as a convenient way to compare these homes. It is very hard to compare homes in different neighborhoods in terms of price, let alone towns. It is easier to compare FBR homes to other FBR homes or Cielo to Cielo etc in terms of price.

As for quality, that is much easier to do. I have referred to a house up here that is over 6,000sf and under $5m, which makes it very very cheap for the size as that price usually gets you 4,000-5,000sf and that size usually costs over $6m-$8m due to >5k sf being so rare here. But the build quality of the house is very low, lot very odd shapped, location horrible (on top of a major freeway, literally), and design a boring box.

Homes in Cielo also vary a bit in build quality. The huge one above is not horrible build quality and design, but it is lower than any other house I have seen there and some have outstanding build quality. Santaluz seems to have very high build quality. FBR, though older also has very high build quality. The covenant seems to vary quite a bit as well. And I am speaking of build quality, not finishes (ie. fully loaded vs. spartin).

The lot sizes of the homes I listed above are generally around 1-2 acres, except for Los Altos, where they run .25-.5 acres. Indeed, homes in Meadows Del Mar in CV are about as expensive as RSF and Santaluz in $/sf or more so, but the lots are .5 acres or less for the most part. What you loose in lot size, you gain in commute and other conveniences.

Alas, I prefer that large lot for privacy. My current lot is a whopping 4,000sf with a 2,600sf 4br house on it. Not only can I see my neighbor’s house, I can hear him breathing, burping, sneezing, an snoring. At least it is a corner lot and he is a good neighbor, but I want and need as far away from that as possible.

And at 18 yrs old, it is considered a newer home up here. Go figure. It is about the exact kind of house and neighborhood you would find in some older parts of CV. In fact, I bought it while I lived in CV and did so because it was the only neighborhood up here that made me feel like I was still in CV.

[raptorduck]

I have. In fact, I have done all kinds of different comparisons: price/sf for lot, house, build quality, bedrooms, size of garage, amenities/upgrades/finishes etc, schools, angle vs sun, attractiveness of neighbors, you name it. It is the nerd in me.

I just picked $/sf for size as a convenient way to compare these homes. It is very hard to compare homes in different neighborhoods in terms of price, let alone towns. It is easier to compare FBR homes to other FBR homes or Cielo to Cielo etc in terms of price.

As for quality, that is much easier to do. I have referred to a house up here that is over 6,000sf and under $5m, which makes it very very cheap for the size as that price usually gets you 4,000-5,000sf and that size usually costs over $6m-$8m due to >5k sf being so rare here. But the build quality of the house is very low, lot very odd shapped, location horrible (on top of a major freeway, literally), and design a boring box.

Homes in Cielo also vary a bit in build quality. The huge one above is not horrible build quality and design, but it is lower than any other house I have seen there and some have outstanding build quality. Santaluz seems to have very high build quality. FBR, though older also has very high build quality. The covenant seems to vary quite a bit as well. And I am speaking of build quality, not finishes (ie. fully loaded vs. spartin).

The lot sizes of the homes I listed above are generally around 1-2 acres, except for Los Altos, where they run .25-.5 acres. Indeed, homes in Meadows Del Mar in CV are about as expensive as RSF and Santaluz in $/sf or more so, but the lots are .5 acres or less for the most part. What you loose in lot size, you gain in commute and other conveniences.

Alas, I prefer that large lot for privacy. My current lot is a whopping 4,000sf with a 2,600sf 4br house on it. Not only can I see my neighbor’s house, I can hear him breathing, burping, sneezing, an snoring. At least it is a corner lot and he is a good neighbor, but I want and need as far away from that as possible.

And at 18 yrs old, it is considered a newer home up here. Go figure. It is about the exact kind of house and neighborhood you would find in some older parts of CV. In fact, I bought it while I lived in CV and did so because it was the only neighborhood up here that made me feel like I was still in CV.

[raptorduck]

I have. In fact, I have done all kinds of different comparisons: price/sf for lot, house, build quality, bedrooms, size of garage, amenities/upgrades/finishes etc, schools, angle vs sun, attractiveness of neighbors, you name it. It is the nerd in me.

I just picked $/sf for size as a convenient way to compare these homes. It is very hard to compare homes in different neighborhoods in terms of price, let alone towns. It is easier to compare FBR homes to other FBR homes or Cielo to Cielo etc in terms of price.

As for quality, that is much easier to do. I have referred to a house up here that is over 6,000sf and under $5m, which makes it very very cheap for the size as that price usually gets you 4,000-5,000sf and that size usually costs over $6m-$8m due to >5k sf being so rare here. But the build quality of the house is very low, lot very odd shapped, location horrible (on top of a major freeway, literally), and design a boring box.

Homes in Cielo also vary a bit in build quality. The huge one above is not horrible build quality and design, but it is lower than any other house I have seen there and some have outstanding build quality. Santaluz seems to have very high build quality. FBR, though older also has very high build quality. The covenant seems to vary quite a bit as well. And I am speaking of build quality, not finishes (ie. fully loaded vs. spartin).

The lot sizes of the homes I listed above are generally around 1-2 acres, except for Los Altos, where they run .25-.5 acres. Indeed, homes in Meadows Del Mar in CV are about as expensive as RSF and Santaluz in $/sf or more so, but the lots are .5 acres or less for the most part. What you loose in lot size, you gain in commute and other conveniences.

Alas, I prefer that large lot for privacy. My current lot is a whopping 4,000sf with a 2,600sf 4br house on it. Not only can I see my neighbor’s house, I can hear him breathing, burping, sneezing, an snoring. At least it is a corner lot and he is a good neighbor, but I want and need as far away from that as possible.

And at 18 yrs old, it is considered a newer home up here. Go figure. It is about the exact kind of house and neighborhood you would find in some older parts of CV. In fact, I bought it while I lived in CV and did so because it was the only neighborhood up here that made me feel like I was still in CV.

[raptorduck]

I have. In fact, I have done all kinds of different comparisons: price/sf for lot, house, build quality, bedrooms, size of garage, amenities/upgrades/finishes etc, schools, angle vs sun, attractiveness of neighbors, you name it. It is the nerd in me.

I just picked $/sf for size as a convenient way to compare these homes. It is very hard to compare homes in different neighborhoods in terms of price, let alone towns. It is easier to compare FBR homes to other FBR homes or Cielo to Cielo etc in terms of price.

As for quality, that is much easier to do. I have referred to a house up here that is over 6,000sf and under $5m, which makes it very very cheap for the size as that price usually gets you 4,000-5,000sf and that size usually costs over $6m-$8m due to >5k sf being so rare here. But the build quality of the house is very low, lot very odd shapped, location horrible (on top of a major freeway, literally), and design a boring box.

Homes in Cielo also vary a bit in build quality. The huge one above is not horrible build quality and design, but it is lower than any other house I have seen there and some have outstanding build quality. Santaluz seems to have very high build quality. FBR, though older also has very high build quality. The covenant seems to vary quite a bit as well. And I am speaking of build quality, not finishes (ie. fully loaded vs. spartin).

The lot sizes of the homes I listed above are generally around 1-2 acres, except for Los Altos, where they run .25-.5 acres. Indeed, homes in Meadows Del Mar in CV are about as expensive as RSF and Santaluz in $/sf or more so, but the lots are .5 acres or less for the most part. What you loose in lot size, you gain in commute and other conveniences.

Alas, I prefer that large lot for privacy. My current lot is a whopping 4,000sf with a 2,600sf 4br house on it. Not only can I see my neighbor’s house, I can hear him breathing, burping, sneezing, an snoring. At least it is a corner lot and he is a good neighbor, but I want and need as far away from that as possible.

And at 18 yrs old, it is considered a newer home up here. Go figure. It is about the exact kind of house and neighborhood you would find in some older parts of CV. In fact, I bought it while I lived in CV and did so because it was the only neighborhood up here that made me feel like I was still in CV.

[pfflyer]

Raptor,
I have been following your posts because we are in somewhat similar positions; although I am looking for a little less home than you need. My question involves categorizing these homes in price per sf. The land values vary widely in areas and lot sizes as well. I have been trying to get approximate land values (per sf) for these areas and then break out the homes in price per sf. While still very unscientific, it allows you to compare quality of build between two homes more realistically. Have you attempted anything similar or are you locked into an area already (FBR?)

[pfflyer]

Raptor,
I have been following your posts because we are in somewhat similar positions; although I am looking for a little less home than you need. My question involves categorizing these homes in price per sf. The land values vary widely in areas and lot sizes as well. I have been trying to get approximate land values (per sf) for these areas and then break out the homes in price per sf. While still very unscientific, it allows you to compare quality of build between two homes more realistically. Have you attempted anything similar or are you locked into an area already (FBR?)

[pfflyer]

Raptor,
I have been following your posts because we are in somewhat similar positions; although I am looking for a little less home than you need. My question involves categorizing these homes in price per sf. The land values vary widely in areas and lot sizes as well. I have been trying to get approximate land values (per sf) for these areas and then break out the homes in price per sf. While still very unscientific, it allows you to compare quality of build between two homes more realistically. Have you attempted anything similar or are you locked into an area already (FBR?)

[pfflyer]

Raptor,
I have been following your posts because we are in somewhat similar positions; although I am looking for a little less home than you need. My question involves categorizing these homes in price per sf. The land values vary widely in areas and lot sizes as well. I have been trying to get approximate land values (per sf) for these areas and then break out the homes in price per sf. While still very unscientific, it allows you to compare quality of build between two homes more realistically. Have you attempted anything similar or are you locked into an area already (FBR?)

[pfflyer]

I am trying to find the day when these things will be priced back in normal dollars. I haven’t been looking as long as you but feel that we are still way out of whack in terms of price. I can’t compare vs. Norcal (which you feel is much worse) but am wondering what you have found is a reasonable number per sf on a large RSF home well built (not including land.) Is it $250-$300/sf? When you break it out how much should the land be? Is $10- $13 per sf the range in Covenant and FBR? I would think Crosby, Cielo, Santaluz, and CV maybe less. I appreciate you sharing what you have learned.

[raptorduck]

Even with the knife still falling, I don’t think we will hit $250-$300/sf in FBR, Santaluz, other parts of RSF or CV. $400/sf is possible in these markets I suppose. Up here in the Bay Area, in the areas I am looking in, I think $600/sf is possible.

Either way, I am speculating about something with great variation. The reality in FBR today is $500+/sf for the most part. In Santaluz it is slightly more than that (which suggests Santaluz is overpriced significantly because neither the area or homes are FBR level). Cielo is running in the $450-$500/sf range, and most vulnerable to dropping further than other areas in RSF are. Meadows Del Mar is running in the $550/sf range these days. IMHO, very overpriced for what you get, great house, but tiny lot. So there is a ways to go to get to the $400/sf range. There are always some real bargains, usually fixer uppers that are not updated, which can be more frequently found in older neighborhoods and the Covenant.

Lot sizes are more difficult to compare on a $/sf basis. You can really only do so within particular areas, such as FBR, Santaluz, Meadows, Cielo etc. Those areas tend to be zoned uniformally so that lot sizes in each are similar in size. You see the most variation in lot sizes in the Covenant, which also has the largest lots on average. You see the least in Meadows Del Mar, or any other neighborhood in CV. On a per sf basis, the value of that lot depends on where it is, of course. An acre of land on the beach in Del Mar, well, I shutter to think what it must be worth. An Acre in Cielo, in one of the few lots with no view, an order of magnitude less or more.

So I don’t compare lot sizes as much as I compare areas. If I could find a 6,000sf+ house on the beach in Del Mar with no less than an acre at a price I could afford, that is where I would be. But I can’t. So for me, so far, I have ranked the areas I am looking in order of favorite and best buy as FBR South Gate, FBR North Gate, Rancho Santa Fe Farms, Rancho Valencia, the Covenant, Santaluz, Cielo, Meadows Del Mar, Fairbanks Highlands, Mendiola street area, Del Mar Mesa, Del Mar Meadows.

I think even the last place area is nice, else I would not look there. I suspect most likely I will end up somewhere up until Meadows Del Mar. The remaining areas don’t offer large enough houses and are more McMansionish, though the neighborhoods are very nice. If Fairbanks Highlands had larger and more custom homes, it would be a great option for me. I really liked that neighborhood and it was a perfect location for commuting and convenience, basically inbetween CV and RSF.

Notice I have not looked at either the Crosby or the Bridges. I don’t play golf and these areas are less geared towards families with small children than the rest of RSF.

BTW. If you want real hard data rather than my own speculation based on my limited experience looking at certain houses in certain price ranges of certain sizes in certain areas, then SD Realtor or Rustico are your guys to ask.

[raptorduck]

Even with the knife still falling, I don’t think we will hit $250-$300/sf in FBR, Santaluz, other parts of RSF or CV. $400/sf is possible in these markets I suppose. Up here in the Bay Area, in the areas I am looking in, I think $600/sf is possible.

Either way, I am speculating about something with great variation. The reality in FBR today is $500+/sf for the most part. In Santaluz it is slightly more than that (which suggests Santaluz is overpriced significantly because neither the area or homes are FBR level). Cielo is running in the $450-$500/sf range, and most vulnerable to dropping further than other areas in RSF are. Meadows Del Mar is running in the $550/sf range these days. IMHO, very overpriced for what you get, great house, but tiny lot. So there is a ways to go to get to the $400/sf range. There are always some real bargains, usually fixer uppers that are not updated, which can be more frequently found in older neighborhoods and the Covenant.

Lot sizes are more difficult to compare on a $/sf basis. You can really only do so within particular areas, such as FBR, Santaluz, Meadows, Cielo etc. Those areas tend to be zoned uniformally so that lot sizes in each are similar in size. You see the most variation in lot sizes in the Covenant, which also has the largest lots on average. You see the least in Meadows Del Mar, or any other neighborhood in CV. On a per sf basis, the value of that lot depends on where it is, of course. An acre of land on the beach in Del Mar, well, I shutter to think what it must be worth. An Acre in Cielo, in one of the few lots with no view, an order of magnitude less or more.

So I don’t compare lot sizes as much as I compare areas. If I could find a 6,000sf+ house on the beach in Del Mar with no less than an acre at a price I could afford, that is where I would be. But I can’t. So for me, so far, I have ranked the areas I am looking in order of favorite and best buy as FBR South Gate, FBR North Gate, Rancho Santa Fe Farms, Rancho Valencia, the Covenant, Santaluz, Cielo, Meadows Del Mar, Fairbanks Highlands, Mendiola street area, Del Mar Mesa, Del Mar Meadows.

I think even the last place area is nice, else I would not look there. I suspect most likely I will end up somewhere up until Meadows Del Mar. The remaining areas don’t offer large enough houses and are more McMansionish, though the neighborhoods are very nice. If Fairbanks Highlands had larger and more custom homes, it would be a great option for me. I really liked that neighborhood and it was a perfect location for commuting and convenience, basically inbetween CV and RSF.

Notice I have not looked at either the Crosby or the Bridges. I don’t play golf and these areas are less geared towards families with small children than the rest of RSF.

BTW. If you want real hard data rather than my own speculation based on my limited experience looking at certain houses in certain price ranges of certain sizes in certain areas, then SD Realtor or Rustico are your guys to ask.

[raptorduck]

Even with the knife still falling, I don’t think we will hit $250-$300/sf in FBR, Santaluz, other parts of RSF or CV. $400/sf is possible in these markets I suppose. Up here in the Bay Area, in the areas I am looking in, I think $600/sf is possible.

Either way, I am speculating about something with great variation. The reality in FBR today is $500+/sf for the most part. In Santaluz it is slightly more than that (which suggests Santaluz is overpriced significantly because neither the area or homes are FBR level). Cielo is running in the $450-$500/sf range, and most vulnerable to dropping further than other areas in RSF are. Meadows Del Mar is running in the $550/sf range these days. IMHO, very overpriced for what you get, great house, but tiny lot. So there is a ways to go to get to the $400/sf range. There are always some real bargains, usually fixer uppers that are not updated, which can be more frequently found in older neighborhoods and the Covenant.

Lot sizes are more difficult to compare on a $/sf basis. You can really only do so within particular areas, such as FBR, Santaluz, Meadows, Cielo etc. Those areas tend to be zoned uniformally so that lot sizes in each are similar in size. You see the most variation in lot sizes in the Covenant, which also has the largest lots on average. You see the least in Meadows Del Mar, or any other neighborhood in CV. On a per sf basis, the value of that lot depends on where it is, of course. An acre of land on the beach in Del Mar, well, I shutter to think what it must be worth. An Acre in Cielo, in one of the few lots with no view, an order of magnitude less or more.

So I don’t compare lot sizes as much as I compare areas. If I could find a 6,000sf+ house on the beach in Del Mar with no less than an acre at a price I could afford, that is where I would be. But I can’t. So for me, so far, I have ranked the areas I am looking in order of favorite and best buy as FBR South Gate, FBR North Gate, Rancho Santa Fe Farms, Rancho Valencia, the Covenant, Santaluz, Cielo, Meadows Del Mar, Fairbanks Highlands, Mendiola street area, Del Mar Mesa, Del Mar Meadows.

I think even the last place area is nice, else I would not look there. I suspect most likely I will end up somewhere up until Meadows Del Mar. The remaining areas don’t offer large enough houses and are more McMansionish, though the neighborhoods are very nice. If Fairbanks Highlands had larger and more custom homes, it would be a great option for me. I really liked that neighborhood and it was a perfect location for commuting and convenience, basically inbetween CV and RSF.

Notice I have not looked at either the Crosby or the Bridges. I don’t play golf and these areas are less geared towards families with small children than the rest of RSF.

BTW. If you want real hard data rather than my own speculation based on my limited experience looking at certain houses in certain price ranges of certain sizes in certain areas, then SD Realtor or Rustico are your guys to ask.

[raptorduck]

Even with the knife still falling, I don’t think we will hit $250-$300/sf in FBR, Santaluz, other parts of RSF or CV. $400/sf is possible in these markets I suppose. Up here in the Bay Area, in the areas I am looking in, I think $600/sf is possible.

Either way, I am speculating about something with great variation. The reality in FBR today is $500+/sf for the most part. In Santaluz it is slightly more than that (which suggests Santaluz is overpriced significantly because neither the area or homes are FBR level). Cielo is running in the $450-$500/sf range, and most vulnerable to dropping further than other areas in RSF are. Meadows Del Mar is running in the $550/sf range these days. IMHO, very overpriced for what you get, great house, but tiny lot. So there is a ways to go to get to the $400/sf range. There are always some real bargains, usually fixer uppers that are not updated, which can be more frequently found in older neighborhoods and the Covenant.

Lot sizes are more difficult to compare on a $/sf basis. You can really only do so within particular areas, such as FBR, Santaluz, Meadows, Cielo etc. Those areas tend to be zoned uniformally so that lot sizes in each are similar in size. You see the most variation in lot sizes in the Covenant, which also has the largest lots on average. You see the least in Meadows Del Mar, or any other neighborhood in CV. On a per sf basis, the value of that lot depends on where it is, of course. An acre of land on the beach in Del Mar, well, I shutter to think what it must be worth. An Acre in Cielo, in one of the few lots with no view, an order of magnitude less or more.

So I don’t compare lot sizes as much as I compare areas. If I could find a 6,000sf+ house on the beach in Del Mar with no less than an acre at a price I could afford, that is where I would be. But I can’t. So for me, so far, I have ranked the areas I am looking in order of favorite and best buy as FBR South Gate, FBR North Gate, Rancho Santa Fe Farms, Rancho Valencia, the Covenant, Santaluz, Cielo, Meadows Del Mar, Fairbanks Highlands, Mendiola street area, Del Mar Mesa, Del Mar Meadows.

I think even the last place area is nice, else I would not look there. I suspect most likely I will end up somewhere up until Meadows Del Mar. The remaining areas don’t offer large enough houses and are more McMansionish, though the neighborhoods are very nice. If Fairbanks Highlands had larger and more custom homes, it would be a great option for me. I really liked that neighborhood and it was a perfect location for commuting and convenience, basically inbetween CV and RSF.

Notice I have not looked at either the Crosby or the Bridges. I don’t play golf and these areas are less geared towards families with small children than the rest of RSF.

BTW. If you want real hard data rather than my own speculation based on my limited experience looking at certain houses in certain price ranges of certain sizes in certain areas, then SD Realtor or Rustico are your guys to ask.

[raptorduck]

Even with the knife still falling, I don’t think we will hit $250-$300/sf in FBR, Santaluz, other parts of RSF or CV. $400/sf is possible in these markets I suppose. Up here in the Bay Area, in the areas I am looking in, I think $600/sf is possible.

Either way, I am speculating about something with great variation. The reality in FBR today is $500+/sf for the most part. In Santaluz it is slightly more than that (which suggests Santaluz is overpriced significantly because neither the area or homes are FBR level). Cielo is running in the $450-$500/sf range, and most vulnerable to dropping further than other areas in RSF are. Meadows Del Mar is running in the $550/sf range these days. IMHO, very overpriced for what you get, great house, but tiny lot. So there is a ways to go to get to the $400/sf range. There are always some real bargains, usually fixer uppers that are not updated, which can be more frequently found in older neighborhoods and the Covenant.

Lot sizes are more difficult to compare on a $/sf basis. You can really only do so within particular areas, such as FBR, Santaluz, Meadows, Cielo etc. Those areas tend to be zoned uniformally so that lot sizes in each are similar in size. You see the most variation in lot sizes in the Covenant, which also has the largest lots on average. You see the least in Meadows Del Mar, or any other neighborhood in CV. On a per sf basis, the value of that lot depends on where it is, of course. An acre of land on the beach in Del Mar, well, I shutter to think what it must be worth. An Acre in Cielo, in one of the few lots with no view, an order of magnitude less or more.

So I don’t compare lot sizes as much as I compare areas. If I could find a 6,000sf+ house on the beach in Del Mar with no less than an acre at a price I could afford, that is where I would be. But I can’t. So for me, so far, I have ranked the areas I am looking in order of favorite and best buy as FBR South Gate, FBR North Gate, Rancho Santa Fe Farms, Rancho Valencia, the Covenant, Santaluz, Cielo, Meadows Del Mar, Fairbanks Highlands, Mendiola street area, Del Mar Mesa, Del Mar Meadows.

I think even the last place area is nice, else I would not look there. I suspect most likely I will end up somewhere up until Meadows Del Mar. The remaining areas don’t offer large enough houses and are more McMansionish, though the neighborhoods are very nice. If Fairbanks Highlands had larger and more custom homes, it would be a great option for me. I really liked that neighborhood and it was a perfect location for commuting and convenience, basically inbetween CV and RSF.

Notice I have not looked at either the Crosby or the Bridges. I don’t play golf and these areas are less geared towards families with small children than the rest of RSF.

BTW. If you want real hard data rather than my own speculation based on my limited experience looking at certain houses in certain price ranges of certain sizes in certain areas, then SD Realtor or Rustico are your guys to ask.

[pfflyer]

I am trying to find the day when these things will be priced back in normal dollars. I haven’t been looking as long as you but feel that we are still way out of whack in terms of price. I can’t compare vs. Norcal (which you feel is much worse) but am wondering what you have found is a reasonable number per sf on a large RSF home well built (not including land.) Is it $250-$300/sf? When you break it out how much should the land be? Is $10- $13 per sf the range in Covenant and FBR? I would think Crosby, Cielo, Santaluz, and CV maybe less. I appreciate you sharing what you have learned.

[pfflyer]

I am trying to find the day when these things will be priced back in normal dollars. I haven’t been looking as long as you but feel that we are still way out of whack in terms of price. I can’t compare vs. Norcal (which you feel is much worse) but am wondering what you have found is a reasonable number per sf on a large RSF home well built (not including land.) Is it $250-$300/sf? When you break it out how much should the land be? Is $10- $13 per sf the range in Covenant and FBR? I would think Crosby, Cielo, Santaluz, and CV maybe less. I appreciate you sharing what you have learned.

[pfflyer]

I am trying to find the day when these things will be priced back in normal dollars. I haven’t been looking as long as you but feel that we are still way out of whack in terms of price. I can’t compare vs. Norcal (which you feel is much worse) but am wondering what you have found is a reasonable number per sf on a large RSF home well built (not including land.) Is it $250-$300/sf? When you break it out how much should the land be? Is $10- $13 per sf the range in Covenant and FBR? I would think Crosby, Cielo, Santaluz, and CV maybe less. I appreciate you sharing what you have learned.

[pfflyer]

I am trying to find the day when these things will be priced back in normal dollars. I haven’t been looking as long as you but feel that we are still way out of whack in terms of price. I can’t compare vs. Norcal (which you feel is much worse) but am wondering what you have found is a reasonable number per sf on a large RSF home well built (not including land.) Is it $250-$300/sf? When you break it out how much should the land be? Is $10- $13 per sf the range in Covenant and FBR? I would think Crosby, Cielo, Santaluz, and CV maybe less. I appreciate you sharing what you have learned.

[Author]

Posts