Is it a bad time to buy? (long term; 5+ years) (Denver: foreclosure, layoffs)

[Phil P]

Originally Posted by bluescreen73

God I hope not. Lakewood is gonna find out real quick how dumb their anti-growth initiative is. It'll drive up prices even faster by exacerbating the existing housing shortage, and it'll cause employers and business owners to look elsewhere when their employees can't afford to live there. Ask Golden and Boulder residents how well NIMBY anti-growth attitudes have worked out for them.

I get it that there's a large contingent of whiny people who think "growth must be stopped at all costs," but capping housing starts is not the answer. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

It'd be different if there was something in Lakewood worth preserving and there were geographical constraints, like Boulder has, but there's not. This initiative was a NIMBY, anti growth, boost my home price but not yours, screw the new comers measure through and through.

But from a pure investment perspective, there's a decent chance that sometime within the next 5 years prices will drop >3% from today (meaning you have to pay cash to sell) but the long term forecast is still decently strong where a house will likely be worth more in 10 years than it is now. So, my take is if you can buy and still retain a decent amount of savings to cover basic what if scenarios it would still make sense, but if you have to take out a lot of your savings to buy, then it's more risky than it's worth and I would discourage it.

In the very long term I think home prices will stop rising overall, but that's a whole nother discussion.

[BarryK123]

Originally Posted by Phil P

It'd be different if there was something in Lakewood worth preserving and there were geographical constraints, like Boulder has, but there's not. This initiative was a NIMBY, anti growth, boost my home price but not yours, screw the new comers measure through and through.

I don't see it that way. I see it as protection against worsening endless traffic and congestion. There aren't enough roads around here due to geography and economics. Trying to funnel more people through the limited pipeline available just makes quality of life worse for all.

[adriftinthebay]

Originally Posted by katharsis

FWIW -- Our Zillow home value has increased from about $424k to about $435k in just about six months, an increase of about 2.6%, but Zillow is predicting an increase of only about 1.5% for next summer. Last year, our neighborhood Realtor said that predictions for this year were for about a 6% increase, which was just about right because last year NO home in our neighborhood sold for more than $400k, but the 21 homes that sold this summer had a median sold price of $424,900 and the average sold price was $422k. (Home sold prices ranged from $384k to $452k.)

We live in southwest metro Denver, btw, and most homes around us were built about 1985-90, on average.

Zillow estimate algorithm is the worst of the bunch -- I would put zero stock in what it says. What about the other sites, redfin, trulia? Take an average of all of them.

[katharsis]

Originally Posted by adriftinthebay

Zillow estimate algorithm is the worst of the bunch -- I would put zero stock in what it says. What about the other sites, redfin, trulia? Take an average of all of them.

Actually, here is a surprise:

Redfin estimate: $434,056
Zillow estimate: $434,805

(No estimate for Trulia.)

P.S. Two homes in our immediate neighborhood that are almost duplicates of our home sold for $440k and $442k this summer.

Home #1 4 BR/3.5 BA Built 1989, 1,863 s.f. home 5,663 s.f. lot Sold $440,000
Home #2 4 BR/3.5 BA Built 1990, 2,411 s.f. home, 4,093 s.f. lot Sold $442,000
Our Home: 4 BR/3.5 BA Built 1988, 2,246 s.f. home, 6,098 s.f. lot

[brown_dog_us]

Originally Posted by bluescreen73

God I hope not. Lakewood is gonna find out real quick how dumb their anti-growth initiative is. It'll drive up prices even faster by exacerbating the existing housing shortage, and it'll cause employers and business owners to look elsewhere when their employees can't afford to live there. Ask Golden and Boulder residents how well NIMBY anti-growth attitudes have worked out for them.

I get it that there's a large contingent of whiny people who think "growth must be stopped at all costs," but capping housing starts is not the answer. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

As a Boulder resident I gotta say it's working out pretty good. My house is appreciating, we're protecting the quality of life that I paid extra for, and jobs are plentiful. How is that cutting off my nose to spite my face?

btw, the scarcity of office space in Boulder means only high paying companies move here. Am I supposed to hate high paying jobs? lol.

[Good Red Road]

Originally Posted by iSudo

Wow, okay, thank you for clarifying that point. That's a material drop. I wonder if it could be due to the price point driving low competition.

It could be that cookie cutter subdivisions are falling out of favor for more urban environments.

[COcheesehead]

Originally Posted by Good Red Road

It could be that cookie cutter subdivisions are falling out of favor for more urban environments.

The neighborhood I referenced is an upscale development with nice amenities. When we lived there, houses went fast, but then they were also 30% less in price. When you reach the $750k point, other options come into play.

I think things appreciate to a point, where the value prop isn't as compelling anymore.

I lived in the city of Denver for awhile. The house I paid $300,000 for near Wash Park sold recently for over a million. I would never have paid that for the house. It was on a semi busy street, Virginia, by the fire station. A million buys a lot of other options.

[N610DL]

900K for a house in Denver is ridiculous unless it's a freaking mansion. 900K will actually get you a decent house in Northern NJ right now (property taxes would be off the wall though) or most desirable areas of Southern California.


I think it's a better time to sell right now than to buy. I'd hate to overbid for a home out there and then have it drop in value a year after buying it.


I think it depends on priorities. Are you trying to flip it quickly upon purchase? Do you want to rent it out first at a high rate? If you buy and plan on keeping it for the long term, then even if the market drops it could only be for a few years and then come back up again.


I don't think Denver was affected as bad by the housing bubble burst in 2006-2008 partially because back then Boulder was the hip area to buy in. These days it could be. If I were to buy a house right now in an up and coming area I'd probably go with one of the larger Texas cities which would be more bang for your buck anyway.

[davebarnes]

Originally Posted by N610DL

I'd probably go with one of the larger Texas cities which would be more bang for your buck anyway.

But, it is Texas!
You could not pay me to live in Texas.

[COcheesehead]

Originally Posted by davebarnes

but, it is texas!
You could not pay me to live in texas.

+1