A few observations of a chicagoan who moved to San Diego (short sale, house)

[shmoov_groovzsd]

Originally Posted by earlyretirement

I'm not saying it's not possible to get a pad for $350,000 but I think it's all relative as what you consider nice and some other people consider nice might be 2 different things.

earlyretirement makes a really great point here. So to add, I think at certain price points in SD, it comes down to what a buyer considers as tolerable vs nice.

There is a lot of 'nice' in SD and it comes in all shades and colors, but as earlyretirement said, at 700k in some areas of 4S, its unjustifiable to pay that for something so average. A little due diligence pays off in the end and really looking at what you are willing to trade off is what matters. If your budget is flexible then even more options are open, but the same rules should apply.

[AADAD]

Originally Posted by TristramShandy

I lived in the Boston-Providence metro area before here. San Diego is Mayberry compared to there when it comes to driving. They aren't called M*******s for nothing.

"Mayberry". Very cute.

[earlyretirement]

Originally Posted by shmoov_groovzsd

earlyretirement makes a really great point here. So to add, I think at certain price points in SD, it comes down to what a buyer considers as tolerable vs nice.

There is a lot of 'nice' in SD and it comes in all shades and colors, but as earlyretirement said, at 700k in some areas of 4S, its unjustifiable to pay that for something so average. A little due diligence pays off in the end and really looking at what you are willing to trade off is what matters. If your budget is flexible then even more options are open, but the same rules should apply.

Yeah Shmoov,

I couldn't really believe that people were paying $700,000 to $850,000 for totally mediocre homes in some parts of 4S Ranch. I didn't get it. We drove by some newly constructed homes and we didn't even get out of the car. I've done enough in real estate to know when I see cheap poorly constructed homes.

And even at this price point, that is with them falling quite a bit from peak prices. I can't imagine anyone paying those types of prices before over 7 figures for a house there.

I can see the potential in 10-15 years with that development looking very tired and used.

I can see young families with kids wanting to be in a good school district and all but I can't see spending that kind of money for some of those homes, especially when you still have all the Mello Roos fees in 4S Ranch.

I think the best way to really evaluate properties and prices is doing lots and lots of research. Even years before buying and looking at listings online daily. I did that for a few years. With all the technology now like Redfin,SDLookup, ZipRealty, Realtor.com and the others...... all the information is out there.

"Tolerable vs nice" is a good way to put it. I've bought real estate in lots of places around the world. And even in the nice cities...I've found there is always cheap real estate. Yeah, cheap real estate can make sense sometimes for rental or cash flow yields...but for living...many times it doesn't make sense.

[onechase]

You'd have to be crazy to spend even $700K on a house in 4S Ranch when the going rental price for a 3 bedroom is $2500.

[Encinitan]

Originally Posted by onechase

You'd have to be crazy to spend even $700K on a house in 4S Ranch when the going rental price for a 3 bedroom is $2500.

the fact that you're spamming the board responding to multiple threads with negativity sort of discounts your credibility, I'd say.

[sdhkshdcny09]

Originally Posted by djxpress

I guess that's a matter of opinion. When I lived in Sacto, there was more going on that anything I've experience in SD. Sacto has a much more "cohesive" city vibe than SD.

Tourist scene is exactly that, a tourist scene.

And ballpark...the way the Pads are doing, I doubt I'd wish them on my worst enemy.

I just got back from Sacramento this week. I was there during the whole budget talk thing, when a lot of out-of-town government employees were in the area. I have never seen a more dead downtown in my life. There are hardly any restaurants open on the weekend or late at night! I like the city, but it is seriously dormant. Compare the two. Which mall gets more people? Horton Plaza. Which historic sites have more people? San Diego. Which city has more restaurants and bars? San Diego. Which city has a downtown stadium that fills up local businesses? San Diego.

There honestly is nothing to do in downtown Sacramento. San Diego's downtown isn't amazing by any means, but you probably picked the worst example other than Fresno, in the state of California. Oh and San Jose's is pretty boring too.

[Radical347]

Originally Posted by mover79

4. Drivers - So far it looks like people speed a lot and the drivers are not as courteous to pedestrians. The speed limit is 10 mph higher than Chicago so it is probably to blame as well.

I wonder if anyone's satisfied with the drivers anywhere. My friend who's also from Chicago says the same thing about SD drivers, but I have no problems with them. On the other hand when I went to Chicago, I found the drivers there incredibly obnoxious.

[durf]

Nice assessment of San Diego. Dt San Diego is dead for the most part even during lunch hour of work week. Was up with that? Even Gaslamp District is dead most of the week. Thur-Sat is when Gaslamp District is active and even crowded in a couple of blocks. Be sure, Dt Chicago is even deader than San Diego's. Have you been to the Loop at 10 PM Fri.? It's embarrassing for a city of 2.7 million.

rhanifin, obviously, you've never been to San Jose. San Jose is fun with a vibrant downtown and Santana Row. San Jose even takes out Chicago no problem.

[kettlepot]

Originally Posted by onechase

You'd have to be crazy to spend even $700K on a house in 4S Ranch when the going rental price for a 3 bedroom is $2500.

$2500/month = $30k/year. $700k/$30k = 23.333 purchase price to yearly rental cost ratio. In San Diego, the ratio tends to move between 17 at the bottom of the market and 27 at the tippy top. 23.333 is high for the current market, but not out of line on a historic basis. I suspect that $700k house is actually being sold for $600k.

Originally Posted by shmoov_groovzsd

At first glance, you are right about housing. What I think you be might missing is that a 350k house in Poway is old (197?0s, 1960s tracts) or may be in a lesser desirable part of town or fringes.

So its all relative. In other words 'old' here means too much work unless you get something truly historic. IMHO its the newcomers like yourself that will really be the change in some of the older neighborhoods. SOme are decent, affordable and have decent schools. Its not the first choice for most, but by any standard or average its what anyone would consider working class.
To you, it may look like a pretty normal neighborhood espcially at 350k, but for someone that has lived here for a while or has a certain standards, the older neighborhoods are simply undesirable.

Shmoov your reply has triggered a question in my head. It's the transition from "Shiny and New" to "Dated and Tired" and then what I see as a resurgence back to "Charming and Old."

I think housing sort of goes through this cost curve. There are the new houses, lets' say Shiny and New = 100. Then there is Dated and Tired which may cost 80, and there there is "Charming and Old" where the comparable house may cost 120 to 150 depending on it's age and the popularity of the style.

So here are my thoughts on defining these terms for San Diego; I would like to read what others think.

Shiny and New = 1990s & 2000s
Styles: McMansion & California Contemporary

Dated and Tired = 1960s, 1970s, & 1980s
Styles: Ranch & California Contemporary

Transitioning to Old and Charming or Retro Cool = 1940s & 1950s
Styles: Minimal Traditional, and Ranchette or Contemporary

Old and Charming = 1900s, 1910s, 1920s, & 1930s.
Late Victorian/Edwardian, Craftsman, Spanish Colonial Revival, Moderne

We don't have much in the way of housing stock from before 1910. What we had was too close to downtown and was mostly torn down long before the modern preservation movement got going.

[mover79]

Originally Posted by earlyretirement

Yeah Shmoov,

I couldn't really believe that people were paying $700,000 to $850,000 for totally mediocre homes in some parts of 4S Ranch. I didn't get it. We drove by some newly constructed homes and we didn't even get out of the car. I've done enough in real estate to know when I see cheap poorly constructed homes.

And even at this price point, that is with them falling quite a bit from peak prices. I can't imagine anyone paying those types of prices before over 7 figures for a house there.

I can see the potential in 10-15 years with that development looking very tired and used.

I can see young families with kids wanting to be in a good school district and all but I can't see spending that kind of money for some of those homes, especially when you still have all the Mello Roos fees in 4S Ranch.

I think the best way to really evaluate properties and prices is doing lots and lots of research. Even years before buying and looking at listings online daily. I did that for a few years. With all the technology now like Redfin,SDLookup, ZipRealty, Realtor.com and the others...... all the information is out there.

"Tolerable vs nice" is a good way to put it. I've bought real estate in lots of places around the world. And even in the nice cities...I've found there is always cheap real estate. Yeah, cheap real estate can make sense sometimes for rental or cash flow yields...but for living...many times it doesn't make sense.

I can't imagine paying 700K for a house. I don't see how young families can afford that kind of a mortgage. I used realtor.com and trulia to search for places and saw a few "decent" small houses which I thought might be worth looking at in the future but it looks like most people on this board believe these houses are in not so desirable places or are too small/old. I'll have to decide for myself when it comes down to it. I don't want a mansion by the beach, just a decent place to raise kids and if 100K a year does not allow a family to have that opportunity, I may have to reconsider my long term plans in San Diego. The weather/scenery and the beach is fun but in the long run, you need to be able to have a place that you call home. Apartment living sucks for the most part.