Is the SF Bay Area overrated? (San Jose, San Francisco: sale, 2014, employment)

[likealady]

Originally Posted by JoeSmow

Quite frankly what I find even more stunning than her pictures are these pictures....

$1,000,000 (current pricing)

$319,000 (current pricing)

You see, some of us value going home to a energy efficient house with every modern amenity vs a million dollar shack. With a property tax rate of 2.3%, you're only looking at $7k, but of course there are no state taxes so clearly a savings over San Francisco

Where is that 2nd home located? It's beautiful on the outside. The kitchen isn't my taste but at least it's much, MUCH more bearable than the one in the SF home. Also, where in SF is that shack?

Originally Posted by 80skeys

I've lived in Austin where flying cockroaches are a problem; short of fumigating the heck out of your apartment every month you can't avoid them. I've lived in New Mexico where centipedes come into your house, cicadas are buzzing all the time in summer months, and wasps are common. I've lived in the D.C. area which has a lot of mosquitos in the summer, and I've been in Minnesota in the summer which is horrible for mosquitos. .... None of these things are present here in Sunnyvale (or, if they're present it's in such small amounts that I haven't noticed them in the 9 years we've been here.)

If you think bugs don't exist here in the Bay Area, I urge you to start a garden or get some houseplants. That'll change your mind real quick. I just killed a mosquito in my house this morning. We live in the inner east bay.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by JoeSmow

I couldn't agree more with this statement. But if that poster enjoys putting up her pictures, more power to her. Quite frankly what I find even more stunning than her pictures are these pictures....

$1,000,000 (current pricing)
$319,000 (current pricing)

You see, some of us value going home to a energy efficient house with every modern amenity vs a million dollar shack. With a property tax rate of 2.3%, you're only looking at $7k, but of course there are no state taxes so clearly a savings over San Francisco.
Ironically, we live in an 2 bd apartment that is bigger than our home in San Francisco (rent of $1300) and our average utility bill is $77 (about half of what we were paying for our PG&E bill back home...the average customer is spending a little over $150 right now in the San Francisco area).
https://www.sfgate.com/business/arti...16-6728373.php
I'm looking forward to purchasing a home in the summer (we wanted to get through a year here to make sure we like it, had sustainable jobs, and could handle the warm summer.....we love it!). For me, the lower COL and a beautiful home trump these scenic pictures any day (but again, as stated by MrJester, there is beautiful scenery all over the country).

So you went to a real estate site and found the worst looking house in San Francisco that was for sale for around a million dollars, however you failed to mention that no one has bought it in the 88 days it's been offered for sale https://www.realtor.com/realestatean...2_M17193-09858 And then you show us the beautiful McMansion for only $319,000 that is so desirable that it hasn't sold in 69 days. https://www.realtor.com/realestatean...8_M87471-92350 (PS that home is in an HOA, I'm not sure what the dues are but it's something to look into before you go buy that home)

We all knew that houses in Texas are cheaper than houses in San Francisco, but San Francisco is considered by many to be a very desirable place to live while Georgetown Texas, while I'm sure it is a very nice town, is probably only even known to Texas residents. Having lived in San Francisco and spending a lot of time in Texas, I don't want to live in either one. Trying to compare the two is like apples and oranges, it's a silly argument to have.

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

So you went to a real estate site and found the worst looking house in San Francisco that was for sale for around a million dollars, however you failed to mention that no one has bought it in the 88 days it's been offered for sale https://www.realtor.com/realestatean...2_M17193-09858 And then you show us the beautiful McMansion for only $319,000 that is so desirable that it hasn't sold in 69 days. https://www.realtor.com/realestatean...8_M87471-92350 (PS that home is in an HOA, I'm not sure what the dues are but it's something to look into before you go buy that home)

We all knew that houses in Texas are cheaper than houses in San Francisco, but San Francisco is considered by many to be a very desirable place to live while Georgetown Texas, while I'm sure it is a very nice town, is probably only even known to Texas residents. Having lived in San Francisco and spending a lot of time in Texas, I don't want to live in either one. Trying to compare the two is like apples and oranges, it's a silly argument to have.

Actually if you drive around San Francisco homes like that are not uncommon.

[nmguy]

I had the choice of moving to the Bay Area or San Diego a few years back and opted for the latter because of the following:

* More affordable real estate
* Less traffic congestion
* Better weather
* Lower COL
* Great beaches
* Abundance of delicious street tacos

San Francisco does have a better selection of restaurants, better views, and more pro sports teams.

As the Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset said: Todo está en el punto de vista, pero no perdamos la perspectiva. (Everything's in one's point of view, but let's not lose perspective.)

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by JoeSmow

The shack is in the Excelsior district, but it would have been easy to find a ton of homes that were small and run down all over the city that went for $1 million+. Personally, I think it's insane but to each their own. When we used to have visitors come in from out of the area, they'd laugh at what people were willing to pay for (it's not impressive at all).

Or if you'd spent a few minutes you could have found a 2276 sq ft 4 bdrm 3.5 bath house in the outer sunset for $899,000 https://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Franci...operty-history

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by aslowdodge

Actually if you drive around San Francisco homes like that are not uncommon.

I didn't say otherwise. There are houses that are worse than that and there are fools who will buy them, but what was presented was probably the most overpriced home in San Francisco as evidenced by the time it's been on the market. But I don't have a dog in this fight, I don't want to live in either San Francisco or Texas.

[NOLA2SGF]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Or if you'd spent a few minutes you could have found a 2276 sq ft 4 bdrm 3.5 bath house in the outer sunset for $899,000 https://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Franci...operty-history

What a dump! Even the realtor's comments say, "No question. This one is a "gut" job. If you are in for a project, this may be the one!".

Personally I would not live in a dump like that, period. Luckily I don't live in that part of the country any more, so I don't have to. I live in a much nicer house in a location that I like better, that I bought for less than a quarter of that price. But each to his own! If someone loves that location then that could be a bargain.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by JoeSmow

Absolutely correct
Absolutely false. In fact, I simply did a query on Google and the first page of Zillow had that house and some others that looked just like it at approximately the same value. I could have picked any of them. As Dodge stated, homes like that are not uncommon in San Francisco
How funny. Yes of course. A home that is 2117 sf is a McMansion, is it?
And the fact that it hasn't sold for 69 days means it's an advantage for the buyer (but thanks for making my point, that superior homes go for less in other areas of the country)
If we're going to get into comparisons on scenery, then yes, getting into a comparison on houses is fair game (sorry if that bothers you). The home you put up for comparison also seems to have a strange history but maybe I'm reading it wrong.

I don't want to do this battle of the real estate listings. My point is that there are far better homes for sale in that price range in San Francisco, you picked either by accident or intentionally probably the worst, most overpriced property. You simply can't compare a house in Georgetown Texas with one in San Francisco, it makes no sense. If you want to go that route, why not find an even cheaper state? Here's a 2500 sq ft home on a half acre in Pine Bluff, Arkansas for $155,000. That makes your house in Georgetown Texas look overpriced, right?

Houses sell for big bucks in San Francisco, just like they do in Aspen Colorado because those are places where people are willing to spend large amounts of money to live there. It doesn't mean it's right for everyone, but it's kind of silly to poke at San Francisco without understanding that houses sell for what people are willing to pay for them and it doesn't matter much if you and I agree or disagree with their perception of value.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by nmguy

I had the choice of moving to the Bay Area or San Diego a few years back and opted for the latter because of the following:

* More affordable real estate
* Less traffic congestion
* Better weather
* Lower COL
* Great beaches
* Abundance of delicious street tacos

San Francisco does have a better selection of restaurants, better views, and more pro sports teams.

As the Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset said: Todo está en el punto de vista, pero no perdamos la perspectiva. (Everything's in one's point of view, but let's not lose perspective.)

San Diego is awesome, best weather in the US

[Finper]

Originally Posted by JoeSmow

Absolutely correct




Absolutely false. In fact, I simply did a query on Google and the first page of Zillow had that house and some others that looked just like it at approximately the same value. I could have picked any of them. As Dodge stated, homes like that are not uncommon in San Francisco





How funny. Yes of course. A home that is 2117 sf is a McMansion, is it?

And the fact that it hasn't sold for 69 days means it's an advantage for the buyer (but thanks for making my point, that superior homes go for less in other areas of the country)

If we're going to get into comparisons on scenery, then yes, getting into a comparison on houses is fair game (sorry if that bothers you). The home you put up for comparison also seems to have a strange history but maybe I'm reading it wrong.

Property History for 2519 Pacheco Street

Date Event & Source Price Appreciation

Dec 13, 2018
Listed (Active)
San Francisco MLS #479487 $899,000 —

Nov 9, 2018 Sold (MLS) (Sold)
Bridge MLS #40842977Listing provided courtesy of Bridge MLS $1,060,000 —

Oct 20, 2018 Pending
Bridge MLS #40842977Listing provided courtesy of Bridge MLS — —

Oct 17, 2018 Listed (New)
Bridge MLS #40842977Listing provided courtesy of Bridge MLS $999,000

Not sure what to say about that.

With that said, I'll leave it to the rest of the posters reading this thread to determine how impressive it is. But I will say that I'm not the least bit impressed by it. Like many in San Francisco, it's outdated and run down.













I think it's a dump also, and therein lies your tradeoff. As much as you want to talk about scenery, at the end of the day, many people have to go home to something like this.

that is strange that it's listed for 100,000 less a month after closing. Maybe it's haunted or full of black mold??