waiting to buy–what is a target price per sq ft?

[jimcav]

zac, thanks–i’d want 1500 sq ft minimum, and currently houses that feed the schools i want are over 700k, which to me is just too high. 600k 30yr fixed mortgage is going to run at least 3500 plus insurance,taxes, closer to 4500 total. comparable or bigger homes renting is possible at under 3k/mo in those areas (mission hills, pt loma).

does anyone see pt loma and mission hills reaching $300 per sq ft w/n 2-3 years?
thanks
jim

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

The problem with price per sq ft is that it varies wildly across different areas/neighborhoods for the simple reason that lot value is often as much the value of the property as the structure.

There is a huge offset in some areas of Southern California. SO, instead of valuing a property as Value = A*x, where x is the value per square foot and A is the square footage, it is more like Value = Ax+ b, where “b” is the lot value.

Variations in number of bathrooms, condition of the property etc make this even more difficult and maybe even useless, but at least it’s better than price/sq foot.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

The problem with price per sq ft is that it varies wildly across different areas/neighborhoods for the simple reason that lot value is often as much the value of the property as the structure.

There is a huge offset in some areas of Southern California. SO, instead of valuing a property as Value = A*x, where x is the value per square foot and A is the square footage, it is more like Value = Ax+ b, where “b” is the lot value.

Variations in number of bathrooms, condition of the property etc make this even more difficult and maybe even useless, but at least it’s better than price/sq foot.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

The problem with price per sq ft is that it varies wildly across different areas/neighborhoods for the simple reason that lot value is often as much the value of the property as the structure.

There is a huge offset in some areas of Southern California. SO, instead of valuing a property as Value = A*x, where x is the value per square foot and A is the square footage, it is more like Value = Ax+ b, where “b” is the lot value.

Variations in number of bathrooms, condition of the property etc make this even more difficult and maybe even useless, but at least it’s better than price/sq foot.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

The problem with price per sq ft is that it varies wildly across different areas/neighborhoods for the simple reason that lot value is often as much the value of the property as the structure.

There is a huge offset in some areas of Southern California. SO, instead of valuing a property as Value = A*x, where x is the value per square foot and A is the square footage, it is more like Value = Ax+ b, where “b” is the lot value.

Variations in number of bathrooms, condition of the property etc make this even more difficult and maybe even useless, but at least it’s better than price/sq foot.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

The problem with price per sq ft is that it varies wildly across different areas/neighborhoods for the simple reason that lot value is often as much the value of the property as the structure.

There is a huge offset in some areas of Southern California. SO, instead of valuing a property as Value = A*x, where x is the value per square foot and A is the square footage, it is more like Value = Ax+ b, where “b” is the lot value.

Variations in number of bathrooms, condition of the property etc make this even more difficult and maybe even useless, but at least it’s better than price/sq foot.

[jimcav]

okay–well anyone familiar with west/north mission hills that feeds grant elementary or pt loma (the part up near catalina that feed silver gate elementary). obviously the lots there are driving prices higher than a lot in another good school area–poway, but i can’t ride to work from poway (well, i could, but it takes too long). I can rent, but would like to buy eventually, i’m just not clear at what price point the “desirablility” location factor is reasonable. back in 1999, you could get a small 1200 sq ft house in the hillcrest/mission hills area for near 300k. now they are 700k. to me that is way too much, but given where i want to live–MH or Pt Loma, the houses will all be older, with similar lots (I’m not talking view lots), so anyone with some experience forecasting what might be a good price point to hold out for buying–$400 sq ft? I’m guessing the 300k house won’t ever go to 300k again, but maybe 480k-550k–would that be reasonable, or do folks think it will go lower?

[jimcav]

okay–well anyone familiar with west/north mission hills that feeds grant elementary or pt loma (the part up near catalina that feed silver gate elementary). obviously the lots there are driving prices higher than a lot in another good school area–poway, but i can’t ride to work from poway (well, i could, but it takes too long). I can rent, but would like to buy eventually, i’m just not clear at what price point the “desirablility” location factor is reasonable. back in 1999, you could get a small 1200 sq ft house in the hillcrest/mission hills area for near 300k. now they are 700k. to me that is way too much, but given where i want to live–MH or Pt Loma, the houses will all be older, with similar lots (I’m not talking view lots), so anyone with some experience forecasting what might be a good price point to hold out for buying–$400 sq ft? I’m guessing the 300k house won’t ever go to 300k again, but maybe 480k-550k–would that be reasonable, or do folks think it will go lower?

[jimcav]

okay–well anyone familiar with west/north mission hills that feeds grant elementary or pt loma (the part up near catalina that feed silver gate elementary). obviously the lots there are driving prices higher than a lot in another good school area–poway, but i can’t ride to work from poway (well, i could, but it takes too long). I can rent, but would like to buy eventually, i’m just not clear at what price point the “desirablility” location factor is reasonable. back in 1999, you could get a small 1200 sq ft house in the hillcrest/mission hills area for near 300k. now they are 700k. to me that is way too much, but given where i want to live–MH or Pt Loma, the houses will all be older, with similar lots (I’m not talking view lots), so anyone with some experience forecasting what might be a good price point to hold out for buying–$400 sq ft? I’m guessing the 300k house won’t ever go to 300k again, but maybe 480k-550k–would that be reasonable, or do folks think it will go lower?

[jimcav]

okay–well anyone familiar with west/north mission hills that feeds grant elementary or pt loma (the part up near catalina that feed silver gate elementary). obviously the lots there are driving prices higher than a lot in another good school area–poway, but i can’t ride to work from poway (well, i could, but it takes too long). I can rent, but would like to buy eventually, i’m just not clear at what price point the “desirablility” location factor is reasonable. back in 1999, you could get a small 1200 sq ft house in the hillcrest/mission hills area for near 300k. now they are 700k. to me that is way too much, but given where i want to live–MH or Pt Loma, the houses will all be older, with similar lots (I’m not talking view lots), so anyone with some experience forecasting what might be a good price point to hold out for buying–$400 sq ft? I’m guessing the 300k house won’t ever go to 300k again, but maybe 480k-550k–would that be reasonable, or do folks think it will go lower?

[jimcav]

okay–well anyone familiar with west/north mission hills that feeds grant elementary or pt loma (the part up near catalina that feed silver gate elementary). obviously the lots there are driving prices higher than a lot in another good school area–poway, but i can’t ride to work from poway (well, i could, but it takes too long). I can rent, but would like to buy eventually, i’m just not clear at what price point the “desirablility” location factor is reasonable. back in 1999, you could get a small 1200 sq ft house in the hillcrest/mission hills area for near 300k. now they are 700k. to me that is way too much, but given where i want to live–MH or Pt Loma, the houses will all be older, with similar lots (I’m not talking view lots), so anyone with some experience forecasting what might be a good price point to hold out for buying–$400 sq ft? I’m guessing the 300k house won’t ever go to 300k again, but maybe 480k-550k–would that be reasonable, or do folks think it will go lower?

[sdnerd]

You are going to get a wide range of answers on this site. You’ll have some who believe you’ll be able to buy at $200,000 and you’ll have some who believe prices will hold, and even the occasional who think they’ll go up (albeit rare).

Nobody knows.

Recession, bailout, interest rates, and a slew of other variables.

What data there is, and from signs from other distressed areas where prices are falling would point to a price decrease in Mission Hills as well. But nobody knows by how much, or how soon.

Your best bet is to just watch the area, keep track of listings, and see what happens.

Personally, I would agree it’s highly doubtful prices will go back to 1999 levels there.

Based on 1999 prices, with annual 4% appreciation would price it roughly $427,000 today. Do some calculations to see what the Buy vs. Rent numbers would be, how much you are paying for rent, and how much personal interest you have in a particular house – and make your decision from there.

[sdnerd]

You are going to get a wide range of answers on this site. You’ll have some who believe you’ll be able to buy at $200,000 and you’ll have some who believe prices will hold, and even the occasional who think they’ll go up (albeit rare).

Nobody knows.

Recession, bailout, interest rates, and a slew of other variables.

What data there is, and from signs from other distressed areas where prices are falling would point to a price decrease in Mission Hills as well. But nobody knows by how much, or how soon.

Your best bet is to just watch the area, keep track of listings, and see what happens.

Personally, I would agree it’s highly doubtful prices will go back to 1999 levels there.

Based on 1999 prices, with annual 4% appreciation would price it roughly $427,000 today. Do some calculations to see what the Buy vs. Rent numbers would be, how much you are paying for rent, and how much personal interest you have in a particular house – and make your decision from there.

[sdnerd]

You are going to get a wide range of answers on this site. You’ll have some who believe you’ll be able to buy at $200,000 and you’ll have some who believe prices will hold, and even the occasional who think they’ll go up (albeit rare).

Nobody knows.

Recession, bailout, interest rates, and a slew of other variables.

What data there is, and from signs from other distressed areas where prices are falling would point to a price decrease in Mission Hills as well. But nobody knows by how much, or how soon.

Your best bet is to just watch the area, keep track of listings, and see what happens.

Personally, I would agree it’s highly doubtful prices will go back to 1999 levels there.

Based on 1999 prices, with annual 4% appreciation would price it roughly $427,000 today. Do some calculations to see what the Buy vs. Rent numbers would be, how much you are paying for rent, and how much personal interest you have in a particular house – and make your decision from there.

[sdnerd]

You are going to get a wide range of answers on this site. You’ll have some who believe you’ll be able to buy at $200,000 and you’ll have some who believe prices will hold, and even the occasional who think they’ll go up (albeit rare).

Nobody knows.

Recession, bailout, interest rates, and a slew of other variables.

What data there is, and from signs from other distressed areas where prices are falling would point to a price decrease in Mission Hills as well. But nobody knows by how much, or how soon.

Your best bet is to just watch the area, keep track of listings, and see what happens.

Personally, I would agree it’s highly doubtful prices will go back to 1999 levels there.

Based on 1999 prices, with annual 4% appreciation would price it roughly $427,000 today. Do some calculations to see what the Buy vs. Rent numbers would be, how much you are paying for rent, and how much personal interest you have in a particular house – and make your decision from there.

[Author]

Posts