“San Diego we still have a problem”

[Anonymous]

Why is it assumed that the average buyer should be able to afford a new, detached home? Somebody has to buy used homes, and even new condos. At any given time, I would assume that the portion of ‘new house’ listings is pretty small compared to new/used condos and used houses.

Personally, I made a bit over average when I first entered the housing market and bought a brand new CONDO in 2005. Yet I had no resentment over not being able to afford a new HOUSE.

(my condo has since lost 57% of its value – based on tax assessment and comparable sales).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pemeliza][quote-threadkiller]I also know someone that makes $90k has that much saved up in cash and cannot afford to buy a new SFH in San Diego.[/quote]TK, why the insistence on buying new? There are plenty of older homes in better locations that your friend could buy with a monthly nut cheaper than renting after deductions. The other option is to buy a new home at an affordable price but in a further out location and deal with the longer commute. Just because one buyer cannot buy exactly what they want where they want it does not mean there are not plenty of options available to a buyer who is willing to make a few compromises.[/quote]

[quote=wooga]Why is it assumed that the average buyer should be able to afford a new, detached home? Somebody has to buy used homes, and even new condos. At any given time, I would assume that the portion of ‘new house’ listings is pretty small compared to new/used condos and used houses…[/quote]

Agree with both pemeliza and wooga here. I cannot wrap my head around why someone would pay a premium price for new construction (often without any nearby sold comps to justify its asking prices) when there is SO MUCH choice out there in far more desirable locations! It doesn’t make sense to me, at all.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pemeliza][quote-threadkiller]I also know someone that makes $90k has that much saved up in cash and cannot afford to buy a new SFH in San Diego.[/quote]TK, why the insistence on buying new? There are plenty of older homes in better locations that your friend could buy with a monthly nut cheaper than renting after deductions. The other option is to buy a new home at an affordable price but in a further out location and deal with the longer commute. Just because one buyer cannot buy exactly what they want where they want it does not mean there are not plenty of options available to a buyer who is willing to make a few compromises.[/quote]

[quote=wooga]Why is it assumed that the average buyer should be able to afford a new, detached home? Somebody has to buy used homes, and even new condos. At any given time, I would assume that the portion of ‘new house’ listings is pretty small compared to new/used condos and used houses…[/quote]

Agree with both pemeliza and wooga here. I cannot wrap my head around why someone would pay a premium price for new construction (often without any nearby sold comps to justify its asking prices) when there is SO MUCH choice out there in far more desirable locations! It doesn’t make sense to me, at all.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pemeliza][quote-threadkiller]I also know someone that makes $90k has that much saved up in cash and cannot afford to buy a new SFH in San Diego.[/quote]TK, why the insistence on buying new? There are plenty of older homes in better locations that your friend could buy with a monthly nut cheaper than renting after deductions. The other option is to buy a new home at an affordable price but in a further out location and deal with the longer commute. Just because one buyer cannot buy exactly what they want where they want it does not mean there are not plenty of options available to a buyer who is willing to make a few compromises.[/quote]

[quote=wooga]Why is it assumed that the average buyer should be able to afford a new, detached home? Somebody has to buy used homes, and even new condos. At any given time, I would assume that the portion of ‘new house’ listings is pretty small compared to new/used condos and used houses…[/quote]

Agree with both pemeliza and wooga here. I cannot wrap my head around why someone would pay a premium price for new construction (often without any nearby sold comps to justify its asking prices) when there is SO MUCH choice out there in far more desirable locations! It doesn’t make sense to me, at all.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pemeliza][quote-threadkiller]I also know someone that makes $90k has that much saved up in cash and cannot afford to buy a new SFH in San Diego.[/quote]TK, why the insistence on buying new? There are plenty of older homes in better locations that your friend could buy with a monthly nut cheaper than renting after deductions. The other option is to buy a new home at an affordable price but in a further out location and deal with the longer commute. Just because one buyer cannot buy exactly what they want where they want it does not mean there are not plenty of options available to a buyer who is willing to make a few compromises.[/quote]

[quote=wooga]Why is it assumed that the average buyer should be able to afford a new, detached home? Somebody has to buy used homes, and even new condos. At any given time, I would assume that the portion of ‘new house’ listings is pretty small compared to new/used condos and used houses…[/quote]

Agree with both pemeliza and wooga here. I cannot wrap my head around why someone would pay a premium price for new construction (often without any nearby sold comps to justify its asking prices) when there is SO MUCH choice out there in far more desirable locations! It doesn’t make sense to me, at all.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pemeliza][quote-threadkiller]I also know someone that makes $90k has that much saved up in cash and cannot afford to buy a new SFH in San Diego.[/quote]TK, why the insistence on buying new? There are plenty of older homes in better locations that your friend could buy with a monthly nut cheaper than renting after deductions. The other option is to buy a new home at an affordable price but in a further out location and deal with the longer commute. Just because one buyer cannot buy exactly what they want where they want it does not mean there are not plenty of options available to a buyer who is willing to make a few compromises.[/quote]

[quote=wooga]Why is it assumed that the average buyer should be able to afford a new, detached home? Somebody has to buy used homes, and even new condos. At any given time, I would assume that the portion of ‘new house’ listings is pretty small compared to new/used condos and used houses…[/quote]

Agree with both pemeliza and wooga here. I cannot wrap my head around why someone would pay a premium price for new construction (often without any nearby sold comps to justify its asking prices) when there is SO MUCH choice out there in far more desirable locations! It doesn’t make sense to me, at all.

[Navydoc]

[quote=bearishgurl I cannot wrap my head around why someone would pay a premium price for new construction (often without any nearby sold comps to justify its asking prices) when there is SO MUCH choice out there in far more desirable locations! It doesn’t make sense to me, at all.[/quote]

I’ll try to help. One of the great insecurities I have about buying in Stonebridge is getting a house that loses 20% of it’s value in the first year or two, which I believe is still a possibility in this community. If I build a new house I can specify everything the way I want it, and can rationalize the crappy market with “I got exactly the house I wanted” and can almost look at it like a car purchase.

I realize this is stupid, but I’m sure the psychology of this is very similar to everyone buying new construction right now. The whole thing just seems less risky, even though it may not be.
By the way, I consider the Stonebridge location to be very desirable, but to each his/her own.

[Navydoc]

[quote=bearishgurl I cannot wrap my head around why someone would pay a premium price for new construction (often without any nearby sold comps to justify its asking prices) when there is SO MUCH choice out there in far more desirable locations! It doesn’t make sense to me, at all.[/quote]

I’ll try to help. One of the great insecurities I have about buying in Stonebridge is getting a house that loses 20% of it’s value in the first year or two, which I believe is still a possibility in this community. If I build a new house I can specify everything the way I want it, and can rationalize the crappy market with “I got exactly the house I wanted” and can almost look at it like a car purchase.

I realize this is stupid, but I’m sure the psychology of this is very similar to everyone buying new construction right now. The whole thing just seems less risky, even though it may not be.
By the way, I consider the Stonebridge location to be very desirable, but to each his/her own.

[Navydoc]

[quote=bearishgurl I cannot wrap my head around why someone would pay a premium price for new construction (often without any nearby sold comps to justify its asking prices) when there is SO MUCH choice out there in far more desirable locations! It doesn’t make sense to me, at all.[/quote]

I’ll try to help. One of the great insecurities I have about buying in Stonebridge is getting a house that loses 20% of it’s value in the first year or two, which I believe is still a possibility in this community. If I build a new house I can specify everything the way I want it, and can rationalize the crappy market with “I got exactly the house I wanted” and can almost look at it like a car purchase.

I realize this is stupid, but I’m sure the psychology of this is very similar to everyone buying new construction right now. The whole thing just seems less risky, even though it may not be.
By the way, I consider the Stonebridge location to be very desirable, but to each his/her own.

[Navydoc]

[quote=bearishgurl I cannot wrap my head around why someone would pay a premium price for new construction (often without any nearby sold comps to justify its asking prices) when there is SO MUCH choice out there in far more desirable locations! It doesn’t make sense to me, at all.[/quote]

I’ll try to help. One of the great insecurities I have about buying in Stonebridge is getting a house that loses 20% of it’s value in the first year or two, which I believe is still a possibility in this community. If I build a new house I can specify everything the way I want it, and can rationalize the crappy market with “I got exactly the house I wanted” and can almost look at it like a car purchase.

I realize this is stupid, but I’m sure the psychology of this is very similar to everyone buying new construction right now. The whole thing just seems less risky, even though it may not be.
By the way, I consider the Stonebridge location to be very desirable, but to each his/her own.

[Navydoc]

[quote=bearishgurl I cannot wrap my head around why someone would pay a premium price for new construction (often without any nearby sold comps to justify its asking prices) when there is SO MUCH choice out there in far more desirable locations! It doesn’t make sense to me, at all.[/quote]

I’ll try to help. One of the great insecurities I have about buying in Stonebridge is getting a house that loses 20% of it’s value in the first year or two, which I believe is still a possibility in this community. If I build a new house I can specify everything the way I want it, and can rationalize the crappy market with “I got exactly the house I wanted” and can almost look at it like a car purchase.

I realize this is stupid, but I’m sure the psychology of this is very similar to everyone buying new construction right now. The whole thing just seems less risky, even though it may not be.
By the way, I consider the Stonebridge location to be very desirable, but to each his/her own.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Navydoc] . . . If I build a new house I can specify everything the way I want it, and can rationalize the crappy market with “I got exactly the house I wanted” and can almost look at it like a car purchase.

I realize this is stupid, but I’m sure the psychology of this is very similar to everyone buying new construction right now. The whole thing just seems less risky, even though it may not be.

By the way, I consider the Stonebridge location to be very desirable, but to each his/her own.[/quote]

Navydoc, I’m sure you’re aware that vehicle buyers EXPECT their cars to depreciate the moment they drive them from the lot. As you know, real property requires a MUCH larger cash outlay than buying a vehicle.

You can make ANY property exactly the way you want it. If it is already in an established area, the most cost-effective way to do this is buy it first, move into it and remodel it room by room until you get it the way you want it. This strategy is only feasible for a VERY well-located property which will bear a sales price in line with your at least your purchase price plus remodeling costs, IMHO.

Buying new construction in the current climate is akin to buying a vehicle, IMO. There is no sweat equity involved, everything is (presumably) the way a buyer wants it now, and, due to often trumped-up developer asking/selling prices and inferior locations, a buyer today CAN expect to lose equity almost immediately. How much? I don’t know. It probably depends upon the development, its location and the qualifications and financial stability of successful buyers in a particular development. This immediate loss of equity doesn’t even take into account the funds a buyer needs after closing to install needed landscaping, even at bare minimum.

You may like Stonebridge because of its proximity to Miramar. However, it is quite far inland, can be very warm, hence the need for (expensive) A/C, has high power/tension line easements, no mature vegetation, and, due to being somewhat isolated, has little to no local services available there, from what I read on this blog. Relative to SD County’s finest areas within the asking price ranges of Stonebridge properties, this community cannot compete in location and quality-of-life issues, IMO. There are too many superior communities in SD County in the same price range as Stonebridge which offer location, an abundance of natural beauty and a lifestyle that Stonebridge can’t.

I don’t have a disdain for Stonebridge, in particular. Just using it for an example here. This post could be applicable to ANY major new construction development. They are ALL in inferior locations to 85% of the existing housing. Why? All the BEST and BETTER locations were built on long ago. That’s my point.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Navydoc] . . . If I build a new house I can specify everything the way I want it, and can rationalize the crappy market with “I got exactly the house I wanted” and can almost look at it like a car purchase.

I realize this is stupid, but I’m sure the psychology of this is very similar to everyone buying new construction right now. The whole thing just seems less risky, even though it may not be.

By the way, I consider the Stonebridge location to be very desirable, but to each his/her own.[/quote]

Navydoc, I’m sure you’re aware that vehicle buyers EXPECT their cars to depreciate the moment they drive them from the lot. As you know, real property requires a MUCH larger cash outlay than buying a vehicle.

You can make ANY property exactly the way you want it. If it is already in an established area, the most cost-effective way to do this is buy it first, move into it and remodel it room by room until you get it the way you want it. This strategy is only feasible for a VERY well-located property which will bear a sales price in line with your at least your purchase price plus remodeling costs, IMHO.

Buying new construction in the current climate is akin to buying a vehicle, IMO. There is no sweat equity involved, everything is (presumably) the way a buyer wants it now, and, due to often trumped-up developer asking/selling prices and inferior locations, a buyer today CAN expect to lose equity almost immediately. How much? I don’t know. It probably depends upon the development, its location and the qualifications and financial stability of successful buyers in a particular development. This immediate loss of equity doesn’t even take into account the funds a buyer needs after closing to install needed landscaping, even at bare minimum.

You may like Stonebridge because of its proximity to Miramar. However, it is quite far inland, can be very warm, hence the need for (expensive) A/C, has high power/tension line easements, no mature vegetation, and, due to being somewhat isolated, has little to no local services available there, from what I read on this blog. Relative to SD County’s finest areas within the asking price ranges of Stonebridge properties, this community cannot compete in location and quality-of-life issues, IMO. There are too many superior communities in SD County in the same price range as Stonebridge which offer location, an abundance of natural beauty and a lifestyle that Stonebridge can’t.

I don’t have a disdain for Stonebridge, in particular. Just using it for an example here. This post could be applicable to ANY major new construction development. They are ALL in inferior locations to 85% of the existing housing. Why? All the BEST and BETTER locations were built on long ago. That’s my point.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Navydoc] . . . If I build a new house I can specify everything the way I want it, and can rationalize the crappy market with “I got exactly the house I wanted” and can almost look at it like a car purchase.

I realize this is stupid, but I’m sure the psychology of this is very similar to everyone buying new construction right now. The whole thing just seems less risky, even though it may not be.

By the way, I consider the Stonebridge location to be very desirable, but to each his/her own.[/quote]

Navydoc, I’m sure you’re aware that vehicle buyers EXPECT their cars to depreciate the moment they drive them from the lot. As you know, real property requires a MUCH larger cash outlay than buying a vehicle.

You can make ANY property exactly the way you want it. If it is already in an established area, the most cost-effective way to do this is buy it first, move into it and remodel it room by room until you get it the way you want it. This strategy is only feasible for a VERY well-located property which will bear a sales price in line with your at least your purchase price plus remodeling costs, IMHO.

Buying new construction in the current climate is akin to buying a vehicle, IMO. There is no sweat equity involved, everything is (presumably) the way a buyer wants it now, and, due to often trumped-up developer asking/selling prices and inferior locations, a buyer today CAN expect to lose equity almost immediately. How much? I don’t know. It probably depends upon the development, its location and the qualifications and financial stability of successful buyers in a particular development. This immediate loss of equity doesn’t even take into account the funds a buyer needs after closing to install needed landscaping, even at bare minimum.

You may like Stonebridge because of its proximity to Miramar. However, it is quite far inland, can be very warm, hence the need for (expensive) A/C, has high power/tension line easements, no mature vegetation, and, due to being somewhat isolated, has little to no local services available there, from what I read on this blog. Relative to SD County’s finest areas within the asking price ranges of Stonebridge properties, this community cannot compete in location and quality-of-life issues, IMO. There are too many superior communities in SD County in the same price range as Stonebridge which offer location, an abundance of natural beauty and a lifestyle that Stonebridge can’t.

I don’t have a disdain for Stonebridge, in particular. Just using it for an example here. This post could be applicable to ANY major new construction development. They are ALL in inferior locations to 85% of the existing housing. Why? All the BEST and BETTER locations were built on long ago. That’s my point.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Navydoc] . . . If I build a new house I can specify everything the way I want it, and can rationalize the crappy market with “I got exactly the house I wanted” and can almost look at it like a car purchase.

I realize this is stupid, but I’m sure the psychology of this is very similar to everyone buying new construction right now. The whole thing just seems less risky, even though it may not be.

By the way, I consider the Stonebridge location to be very desirable, but to each his/her own.[/quote]

Navydoc, I’m sure you’re aware that vehicle buyers EXPECT their cars to depreciate the moment they drive them from the lot. As you know, real property requires a MUCH larger cash outlay than buying a vehicle.

You can make ANY property exactly the way you want it. If it is already in an established area, the most cost-effective way to do this is buy it first, move into it and remodel it room by room until you get it the way you want it. This strategy is only feasible for a VERY well-located property which will bear a sales price in line with your at least your purchase price plus remodeling costs, IMHO.

Buying new construction in the current climate is akin to buying a vehicle, IMO. There is no sweat equity involved, everything is (presumably) the way a buyer wants it now, and, due to often trumped-up developer asking/selling prices and inferior locations, a buyer today CAN expect to lose equity almost immediately. How much? I don’t know. It probably depends upon the development, its location and the qualifications and financial stability of successful buyers in a particular development. This immediate loss of equity doesn’t even take into account the funds a buyer needs after closing to install needed landscaping, even at bare minimum.

You may like Stonebridge because of its proximity to Miramar. However, it is quite far inland, can be very warm, hence the need for (expensive) A/C, has high power/tension line easements, no mature vegetation, and, due to being somewhat isolated, has little to no local services available there, from what I read on this blog. Relative to SD County’s finest areas within the asking price ranges of Stonebridge properties, this community cannot compete in location and quality-of-life issues, IMO. There are too many superior communities in SD County in the same price range as Stonebridge which offer location, an abundance of natural beauty and a lifestyle that Stonebridge can’t.

I don’t have a disdain for Stonebridge, in particular. Just using it for an example here. This post could be applicable to ANY major new construction development. They are ALL in inferior locations to 85% of the existing housing. Why? All the BEST and BETTER locations were built on long ago. That’s my point.

[Author]

Posts