Upper MId to Lower High End Market in NCC

[KSMountain]

We’ve lived in 92024 since ’94. My impression is that the area (especially the coastal part) has been gradually gentrifying, especially in the last 5 years.

I’m not an RE expert by any means, but it seems to me the gentrification and upscaling will increase 92024’s appeal to wealthier buyers.

From there I extrapolate that prices in 92024 will NOT get hammered in the next 2-3 years, however much I might like them to.

Here I’m not arguing that the weather has changed, but that the nature of the community and its prospective inhabitants seems to be changing.

You can add me to the camp that feel there are PLENTY of people who can afford a $1MM house. That number gets easier to hit with age, btw.

Many/most of us don’t currently feel as wealthy as we may have in 1999, but unless some crazy secular thing is about to befall us (possible but I hope not), our economy is cyclical and inevitably the pendulum is going to swing back towards party times, even if that is very hard to imagine currently.

[KSMountain]

Here’s a question:

Do you think the upcoming Whole Foods market in downtown Encinitas will help or hurt nearby real estate prices?

I can see arguments both ways…

[KSMountain]

Here’s a question:

Do you think the upcoming Whole Foods market in downtown Encinitas will help or hurt nearby real estate prices?

I can see arguments both ways…

[KSMountain]

Here’s a question:

Do you think the upcoming Whole Foods market in downtown Encinitas will help or hurt nearby real estate prices?

I can see arguments both ways…

[KSMountain]

Here’s a question:

Do you think the upcoming Whole Foods market in downtown Encinitas will help or hurt nearby real estate prices?

I can see arguments both ways…

[KSMountain]

Here’s a question:

Do you think the upcoming Whole Foods market in downtown Encinitas will help or hurt nearby real estate prices?

I can see arguments both ways…

[sdrealtor]

I think it can only help. I remmeber driving around neighborhoods that looked very seedy in 1997 which now have gentrified. I remember driving high end buyers around and trying to explain that the place is nicer than it looks in spite of a few ramshackle properties to no avail. Higher end buyers like to be surrounded by other higher end homes and amenities.

Whether or not the Whole Foods helps RE prices I dont really care. It will help my weekly dinner plans.

[sdrealtor]

I think it can only help. I remmeber driving around neighborhoods that looked very seedy in 1997 which now have gentrified. I remember driving high end buyers around and trying to explain that the place is nicer than it looks in spite of a few ramshackle properties to no avail. Higher end buyers like to be surrounded by other higher end homes and amenities.

Whether or not the Whole Foods helps RE prices I dont really care. It will help my weekly dinner plans.

[sdrealtor]

I think it can only help. I remmeber driving around neighborhoods that looked very seedy in 1997 which now have gentrified. I remember driving high end buyers around and trying to explain that the place is nicer than it looks in spite of a few ramshackle properties to no avail. Higher end buyers like to be surrounded by other higher end homes and amenities.

Whether or not the Whole Foods helps RE prices I dont really care. It will help my weekly dinner plans.

[sdrealtor]

I think it can only help. I remmeber driving around neighborhoods that looked very seedy in 1997 which now have gentrified. I remember driving high end buyers around and trying to explain that the place is nicer than it looks in spite of a few ramshackle properties to no avail. Higher end buyers like to be surrounded by other higher end homes and amenities.

Whether or not the Whole Foods helps RE prices I dont really care. It will help my weekly dinner plans.

[sdrealtor]

I think it can only help. I remmeber driving around neighborhoods that looked very seedy in 1997 which now have gentrified. I remember driving high end buyers around and trying to explain that the place is nicer than it looks in spite of a few ramshackle properties to no avail. Higher end buyers like to be surrounded by other higher end homes and amenities.

Whether or not the Whole Foods helps RE prices I dont really care. It will help my weekly dinner plans.

[ocrenter]

[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=temeculaguy]Those judges never changed their math, they were right then, they are probably right now, their formulas didn’t change, the perception of their formulas have. When the likes of sdrealtor and ocrenter both give her a 7, guess what she’s probably a 7, and 7 aint bad. I like a 7, they are more appreciative than a 9 or a 10, but I digress, which is what I’m known for.[/quote]

I actually don’t fully agree with this. Economy is a moving target. So when the facts changed, even if their formula didn’t change, the end result could change. Which judge several years ago predicted the 10% unemployment, the bankrupcy of lehman, GM, AIG, fannie mae and fredie mac? And who predicted the aggressive response by the FED and the congess? The huge amount of the shadow inventory and the government bented in backward with new accounting rules for the to mark-to-fantasy?
We are in uncharted territory and we need new formula. That’s what I am saying.[/quote]

I actually missed TG’s original post. quite classic TG, as always. =)

I suppose I can see carlsbadworker’s point of view. To borrow TG’s example. One could say that because so many of the contestants have augmentations and the plastic surgeons have gotten so good that we need to move that yardstick and judge the 7 differently.

The problem here is location.

If we are talking Vegas, Phoenix, SW Florida, Central Valley, absolutely Carlsbadworker is right. There is no bottom in sight. there is no way you can use the year 2000 payment calculation. inventory is so overwhelming and the economy is so depressed. and quite frankly, a lot of these areas were truly “artificial” as far as their economy goes: The bubble created the homes, the bubble created the jobs, the bubble created the population increase. Once the bubble is gone, what you really have are just wooden framed structures with Chinese drywalls sitting in the middle of swamp land or desert or cow pasture.

You can’t apply that same logic to SD or LA. Even with substained 10% unemployment, there are so many people and the economy is well established enough that there is really not that much room to move that yardstick.

[ocrenter]

[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=temeculaguy]Those judges never changed their math, they were right then, they are probably right now, their formulas didn’t change, the perception of their formulas have. When the likes of sdrealtor and ocrenter both give her a 7, guess what she’s probably a 7, and 7 aint bad. I like a 7, they are more appreciative than a 9 or a 10, but I digress, which is what I’m known for.[/quote]

I actually don’t fully agree with this. Economy is a moving target. So when the facts changed, even if their formula didn’t change, the end result could change. Which judge several years ago predicted the 10% unemployment, the bankrupcy of lehman, GM, AIG, fannie mae and fredie mac? And who predicted the aggressive response by the FED and the congess? The huge amount of the shadow inventory and the government bented in backward with new accounting rules for the to mark-to-fantasy?
We are in uncharted territory and we need new formula. That’s what I am saying.[/quote]

I actually missed TG’s original post. quite classic TG, as always. =)

I suppose I can see carlsbadworker’s point of view. To borrow TG’s example. One could say that because so many of the contestants have augmentations and the plastic surgeons have gotten so good that we need to move that yardstick and judge the 7 differently.

The problem here is location.

If we are talking Vegas, Phoenix, SW Florida, Central Valley, absolutely Carlsbadworker is right. There is no bottom in sight. there is no way you can use the year 2000 payment calculation. inventory is so overwhelming and the economy is so depressed. and quite frankly, a lot of these areas were truly “artificial” as far as their economy goes: The bubble created the homes, the bubble created the jobs, the bubble created the population increase. Once the bubble is gone, what you really have are just wooden framed structures with Chinese drywalls sitting in the middle of swamp land or desert or cow pasture.

You can’t apply that same logic to SD or LA. Even with substained 10% unemployment, there are so many people and the economy is well established enough that there is really not that much room to move that yardstick.

[ocrenter]

[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=temeculaguy]Those judges never changed their math, they were right then, they are probably right now, their formulas didn’t change, the perception of their formulas have. When the likes of sdrealtor and ocrenter both give her a 7, guess what she’s probably a 7, and 7 aint bad. I like a 7, they are more appreciative than a 9 or a 10, but I digress, which is what I’m known for.[/quote]

I actually don’t fully agree with this. Economy is a moving target. So when the facts changed, even if their formula didn’t change, the end result could change. Which judge several years ago predicted the 10% unemployment, the bankrupcy of lehman, GM, AIG, fannie mae and fredie mac? And who predicted the aggressive response by the FED and the congess? The huge amount of the shadow inventory and the government bented in backward with new accounting rules for the to mark-to-fantasy?
We are in uncharted territory and we need new formula. That’s what I am saying.[/quote]

I actually missed TG’s original post. quite classic TG, as always. =)

I suppose I can see carlsbadworker’s point of view. To borrow TG’s example. One could say that because so many of the contestants have augmentations and the plastic surgeons have gotten so good that we need to move that yardstick and judge the 7 differently.

The problem here is location.

If we are talking Vegas, Phoenix, SW Florida, Central Valley, absolutely Carlsbadworker is right. There is no bottom in sight. there is no way you can use the year 2000 payment calculation. inventory is so overwhelming and the economy is so depressed. and quite frankly, a lot of these areas were truly “artificial” as far as their economy goes: The bubble created the homes, the bubble created the jobs, the bubble created the population increase. Once the bubble is gone, what you really have are just wooden framed structures with Chinese drywalls sitting in the middle of swamp land or desert or cow pasture.

You can’t apply that same logic to SD or LA. Even with substained 10% unemployment, there are so many people and the economy is well established enough that there is really not that much room to move that yardstick.

[ocrenter]

[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=temeculaguy]Those judges never changed their math, they were right then, they are probably right now, their formulas didn’t change, the perception of their formulas have. When the likes of sdrealtor and ocrenter both give her a 7, guess what she’s probably a 7, and 7 aint bad. I like a 7, they are more appreciative than a 9 or a 10, but I digress, which is what I’m known for.[/quote]

I actually don’t fully agree with this. Economy is a moving target. So when the facts changed, even if their formula didn’t change, the end result could change. Which judge several years ago predicted the 10% unemployment, the bankrupcy of lehman, GM, AIG, fannie mae and fredie mac? And who predicted the aggressive response by the FED and the congess? The huge amount of the shadow inventory and the government bented in backward with new accounting rules for the to mark-to-fantasy?
We are in uncharted territory and we need new formula. That’s what I am saying.[/quote]

I actually missed TG’s original post. quite classic TG, as always. =)

I suppose I can see carlsbadworker’s point of view. To borrow TG’s example. One could say that because so many of the contestants have augmentations and the plastic surgeons have gotten so good that we need to move that yardstick and judge the 7 differently.

The problem here is location.

If we are talking Vegas, Phoenix, SW Florida, Central Valley, absolutely Carlsbadworker is right. There is no bottom in sight. there is no way you can use the year 2000 payment calculation. inventory is so overwhelming and the economy is so depressed. and quite frankly, a lot of these areas were truly “artificial” as far as their economy goes: The bubble created the homes, the bubble created the jobs, the bubble created the population increase. Once the bubble is gone, what you really have are just wooden framed structures with Chinese drywalls sitting in the middle of swamp land or desert or cow pasture.

You can’t apply that same logic to SD or LA. Even with substained 10% unemployment, there are so many people and the economy is well established enough that there is really not that much room to move that yardstick.

[Author]

Posts