areas of Colorado Springs (Manitou Springs: sale, real estate market, how much)

[MMichelle]

I constantly read threads about which areas (neighborhoods) of Colorado Springs are best. Usually those that reply suggest their own is best and another place is worse. However few people know much of neighborhoods other than their own. I have lived in the Springs for 30 years. I have the unique chance to live in several different areas of town. My work takes me to all corners of the city and surrounding area. Even after all these years ... I love living in Colorado Springs!!

Check out the Gazette's 2010 Neighborhood Guide.
gazette.com - Neighborhoods=

As I have often posted, new isn't always best. I found many of the stats interesting and very few surprising. With the recent drop in the real estate market it's intresting to note which areas held value - and how much. Notice the "appreciation 1996-2009". Colorado Springs did much better than other areas of the US. Still it was a very difficult span of time for our property values. Here's just a few I noted:

59% Briargate
103% Broadmoor
115% Broadmoor Bluffs Estate (includes B'moor Resort Community)
93% Manitou Spings
106% Crystal Hills (most is within Manitou Springs)
55% Stetson Hills
54% Mountain Shadows
23% Wolf Ranch & Cordera (ouch!)

[Postal]

That's a bit misleading since many of the newer properties haven't been around that long.

[MMichelle]

As I mentioned newer isn't always best. Still, the age of the area has little to do with retained values. Example - Some of the homes in Broadmoor Resort Communtity are newer than those in Wolf Ranch. The market is what it is - the actual sale prices create the data. This does show how people often hold assumptions about different areas of town that are based on nothing. It's interesting.

[Postal]

Actually, age of the area has alot to do with home value appreciation. Some of the homes in Broadmoor being newer isn't enough to outweigh all of the homes in Wolf Ranch being newer. An older house will have started at a lower price and had more time to appreciate. In a numbers game, this will show a greater appreciation percentage than a newer house that started at a higher price and had less time to appreciate.

For example:
A home in an older area is built in 1990 and sold for $100k. It appreciates to $250k in 2010. It has 20 years of time to appreciate and starts at a time when housing prices were much lower. A home in a newer area is built in 2005 and sold for $200k. It appreciates to $250k in 2010. It only has 5 years of time to appreciate. Both houses are worth the same amount, but the first one will show a an appreciation of 150% where the second will only show an appreciation of 25%

I'm not saying your wrong in your assertion that older houses retain value better. But your method of comparison is not a good way to demonstrate that assertion is true.

[ColoSpgsJamie]

I think it all depends on what you are looking for. My wife and I have moved back to the Rockrimmon / Mountain Shadows area (Northwest) from our new home further east. We miss the area so much (used to live there). It really wasn't about home appreciation, new or used, just about the area itself. Lets face it, if you "choose" to move to rockrimmon you accept the mine shaft stories, the unlevel sidewalks, the cracked driveways, and in a lot of cases the older home.

I find it hard to tell people about neighborhoods because people vary so much in what they are looking to find. I can find you a 4 bed / 3 bath / 2 car home anywhere in the city...now lets talk about the other important things... Trees or not, green or desert, new or old, established or not, school district, work distance, east or west, etc etc.

I agree that people do hold the assumption that because it is here in xyz area its better. But that is all relative to wants and desires not just appreciation.