[sdcellar]

Mission Hills (and Point Loma) will always command a premium. I’ve never been a believer in “we’re running out of land,” but one thing they’re not building anymore are 1920’s spanish-style homes or craftsman bungalows or mid-century moderns.

Not saying they won’t come down (or haven’t already), just that they’ll still be premium areas for some time to come. I would agree though that Liberty Station probably doesn’t help the cause.

And this coming from an engineer, no less.

[sdcellar]

And while we’re mentioning sdrealtor, didn’t he say something about eating a house 2×4 by 2×4 if it sold for 2001 nominal? Obviously, his new escrow must not be on his street (or he’s got a tremendous fondness for cellulose).

Again, I trust he’s right on both counts, but I’m guessing this sweet deal he found for his client is the exception rather than the rule. Maybe we’ll see more. Or maybe not.

[sdcellar]

And while we’re mentioning sdrealtor, didn’t he say something about eating a house 2×4 by 2×4 if it sold for 2001 nominal? Obviously, his new escrow must not be on his street (or he’s got a tremendous fondness for cellulose).

Again, I trust he’s right on both counts, but I’m guessing this sweet deal he found for his client is the exception rather than the rule. Maybe we’ll see more. Or maybe not.

[sdcellar]

And while we’re mentioning sdrealtor, didn’t he say something about eating a house 2×4 by 2×4 if it sold for 2001 nominal? Obviously, his new escrow must not be on his street (or he’s got a tremendous fondness for cellulose).

Again, I trust he’s right on both counts, but I’m guessing this sweet deal he found for his client is the exception rather than the rule. Maybe we’ll see more. Or maybe not.

[sdcellar]

And while we’re mentioning sdrealtor, didn’t he say something about eating a house 2×4 by 2×4 if it sold for 2001 nominal? Obviously, his new escrow must not be on his street (or he’s got a tremendous fondness for cellulose).

Again, I trust he’s right on both counts, but I’m guessing this sweet deal he found for his client is the exception rather than the rule. Maybe we’ll see more. Or maybe not.

[sdcellar]

And while we’re mentioning sdrealtor, didn’t he say something about eating a house 2×4 by 2×4 if it sold for 2001 nominal? Obviously, his new escrow must not be on his street (or he’s got a tremendous fondness for cellulose).

Again, I trust he’s right on both counts, but I’m guessing this sweet deal he found for his client is the exception rather than the rule. Maybe we’ll see more. Or maybe not.

[sdcellar]

2003 would be seven years, last I checked, so I happily ignored it (and I was being generous at 8, you know I’m a 2001 guy). And, yes, sdr’s deal is even better (and I actually trust that he’s correct).

Remember, to 1997/98 folks, 2001 was starting to look expensive. Things really didn’t get that much better about San Diego in that four year period either, but at least you could point to something meaningful in that prices may have been “cheap” in 97/98 coming off the early 90’s bust and there was a tech boom or something in there (and a bust that didn’t seem to have any ill effects).

Three sold at 2001 nominal was an exaggeration, of course, because I have no idea what the number is. I just don’t think it’s all that high. At least not in the areas I know anything about.

[sdcellar]

2003 would be seven years, last I checked, so I happily ignored it (and I was being generous at 8, you know I’m a 2001 guy). And, yes, sdr’s deal is even better (and I actually trust that he’s correct).

Remember, to 1997/98 folks, 2001 was starting to look expensive. Things really didn’t get that much better about San Diego in that four year period either, but at least you could point to something meaningful in that prices may have been “cheap” in 97/98 coming off the early 90’s bust and there was a tech boom or something in there (and a bust that didn’t seem to have any ill effects).

Three sold at 2001 nominal was an exaggeration, of course, because I have no idea what the number is. I just don’t think it’s all that high. At least not in the areas I know anything about.

[sdcellar]

2003 would be seven years, last I checked, so I happily ignored it (and I was being generous at 8, you know I’m a 2001 guy). And, yes, sdr’s deal is even better (and I actually trust that he’s correct).

Remember, to 1997/98 folks, 2001 was starting to look expensive. Things really didn’t get that much better about San Diego in that four year period either, but at least you could point to something meaningful in that prices may have been “cheap” in 97/98 coming off the early 90’s bust and there was a tech boom or something in there (and a bust that didn’t seem to have any ill effects).

Three sold at 2001 nominal was an exaggeration, of course, because I have no idea what the number is. I just don’t think it’s all that high. At least not in the areas I know anything about.

[sdcellar]

2003 would be seven years, last I checked, so I happily ignored it (and I was being generous at 8, you know I’m a 2001 guy). And, yes, sdr’s deal is even better (and I actually trust that he’s correct).

Remember, to 1997/98 folks, 2001 was starting to look expensive. Things really didn’t get that much better about San Diego in that four year period either, but at least you could point to something meaningful in that prices may have been “cheap” in 97/98 coming off the early 90’s bust and there was a tech boom or something in there (and a bust that didn’t seem to have any ill effects).

Three sold at 2001 nominal was an exaggeration, of course, because I have no idea what the number is. I just don’t think it’s all that high. At least not in the areas I know anything about.

[sdcellar]

2003 would be seven years, last I checked, so I happily ignored it (and I was being generous at 8, you know I’m a 2001 guy). And, yes, sdr’s deal is even better (and I actually trust that he’s correct).

Remember, to 1997/98 folks, 2001 was starting to look expensive. Things really didn’t get that much better about San Diego in that four year period either, but at least you could point to something meaningful in that prices may have been “cheap” in 97/98 coming off the early 90’s bust and there was a tech boom or something in there (and a bust that didn’t seem to have any ill effects).

Three sold at 2001 nominal was an exaggeration, of course, because I have no idea what the number is. I just don’t think it’s all that high. At least not in the areas I know anything about.

[sdcellar]

Seems tough to compare San Diego and L.A. real estate. They don’t seem to have what we have and vice-versa. At least not in the non-dicey areas.

That said, L.A. is a big place, so I’m sure there’s a lot I don’t know. That said, my most recent cruisings through the big city took me through Burbank and a few weeks later up into the Hollywood Hills. Both areas surprised me for what real estate they had available (and recently sold), but neither could translate to anything here (at least not for me).

Burbank, for example, could best be described as “inland”, but it’s not like any inland I know of here in Diego. Not saying it’s better or worse, just different.

[sdcellar]

Seems tough to compare San Diego and L.A. real estate. They don’t seem to have what we have and vice-versa. At least not in the non-dicey areas.

That said, L.A. is a big place, so I’m sure there’s a lot I don’t know. That said, my most recent cruisings through the big city took me through Burbank and a few weeks later up into the Hollywood Hills. Both areas surprised me for what real estate they had available (and recently sold), but neither could translate to anything here (at least not for me).

Burbank, for example, could best be described as “inland”, but it’s not like any inland I know of here in Diego. Not saying it’s better or worse, just different.

[sdcellar]

Seems tough to compare San Diego and L.A. real estate. They don’t seem to have what we have and vice-versa. At least not in the non-dicey areas.

That said, L.A. is a big place, so I’m sure there’s a lot I don’t know. That said, my most recent cruisings through the big city took me through Burbank and a few weeks later up into the Hollywood Hills. Both areas surprised me for what real estate they had available (and recently sold), but neither could translate to anything here (at least not for me).

Burbank, for example, could best be described as “inland”, but it’s not like any inland I know of here in Diego. Not saying it’s better or worse, just different.

[sdcellar]

Seems tough to compare San Diego and L.A. real estate. They don’t seem to have what we have and vice-versa. At least not in the non-dicey areas.

That said, L.A. is a big place, so I’m sure there’s a lot I don’t know. That said, my most recent cruisings through the big city took me through Burbank and a few weeks later up into the Hollywood Hills. Both areas surprised me for what real estate they had available (and recently sold), but neither could translate to anything here (at least not for me).

Burbank, for example, could best be described as “inland”, but it’s not like any inland I know of here in Diego. Not saying it’s better or worse, just different.

[Author]

Posts