SF vs villa (Sarasota, Villas: sales, renters, HOA fees)

[emhenry0048]

I had only considered villas vs SF, but the prices for SF seem lower. I don't get it because not only are the villas higher prices, they also have HOA fees in the $400 - $550 range for units priced in the $205k - $265K range. Can s/o explain? Might there be any SF communities whose HOA fee includes just lawn mowing?

[froglipz]

Or just contract the mowing yourself and no HOA. It is around $85-$100/ mo. for avg lawn.

[macrodome2]

Don't know why Villas would cost more to buy than SF, but the Villa HOA fee may include roof replacement and external painting and building maintenance. If you replace a roof on a Villa, you'd probably want to do the other side so they look the same. Same for paint. With a SF there's nothing to match so most homeowners are on their own for replacement and repairs.

[bbronston]

Unfortunately, "villa" is one of those nebulously-defined terms used to describe some properties around here but, if you ask someone to describe a villa, you can get several different answers. When I do a search on the MLS for what most people would generally describe as "a house", I include both Single Family and Villa as property types because agents can describe a house as either based on their own understanding of the terms. If I search for only one of these types (along with all the other criteria), it is possible that I might miss other matching properties.

We also differentiate between a Villa and a Paired Villa (which might be what macrodome2 is talking about when mentioning the roof replacement.) And, of course, builders might put their own stamp on things, too. So, my point is that it might help if you tell us where you are looking or what you have in mind when you say villa and single-family.

[BadShotCaller]

If it's a NEAL villa, you better believe that the place is overpriced but nonetheless overly hawked by local sales people.


ALL villas in Sarasota/Manatee are overpriced - from Soleil to Amalfi to Woodbrook to wherever.

[bbronston]

Prices keep rising because people keep coming and buying at the higher prices. I hear from many builder sales reps that they have slowed down over the summer but they are still selling. Neal reported 104 sales this July.

Baby boomer retirees fuel latest housing boom | HeraldTribune.com

Eventually, prices will come down again because that's the way markets work but even experts can't tell you when and by how much. All we know is that people continue to move to Florida and that fuels demand.

http://www.floridatrend.com/public/u...rt_Q1_2016.pdf

Prices are not as high as they were in the boom but they seem to be moving in that direction. That, by itself, doesn't mean that a fall is imminent, of course, but when you consider that home ownership has fallen to a five-decade low of 62.9 percent in the second quarter around the country, you have to think that, eventually, many of those renters will come to the conclusion that it is time to pay their own mortgage than someone the mortgage of someone else. If that happens, northern retirees and others will see their values go up which, in turn, adds fuel to our market.

[bbronston]

I understand but I don't think the housing market functions like security markets. Investors might look at it that way but everyday home buyers don't, IMHO.

[Sunshine Rules]

Originally Posted by jean-lissette

Prices have not risen by buyers...that doesn't happen. It's the builders that increase pricing.


More buyers don't automatically increase pricing models. That's absurd. The developers have increased prices in this market because they can, not because they have to...it's phony greed
and sales people have fanned the flames of inflated pricing.


Let me be specific. There is no believable evidence that cost of raw materials has exponentially risen, thus the necessity to pass on those increases to the buyer of the house. Similarly, there is little credible evidence to suggest that the availability and cost to labor and dramatically increased either. Labor costs are the major component in margins in most business.


I don't see the present increases in raw materials and labor sufficiently inflated to coincide with the pricing models that are now in the housing market .


Additionally, most all of the acquired unimproved land that is presently being developed seems to have been acquired years and decades ago at much lower prices.


The housing market is not a pure economic model. In fact, it can be very bogus. That's the essential reality.


Developers also use economies of scale in standardizing or cookie-cutting en masse components of their models in order to cut costs. For example the same roof trusses are pre-ordered and used in 4 or 5 basic house designs. C/D plywood is C/D plywood...cheap. Concrete block is dirt cheap. PVC pipe and glue is cheap. SPF stud pricing is fairly stable. Concrete pours are relatively stable and cheap.

You may change your name but your writing style gives you away..........

[photoman_6]

apparently, the laws of demand have not kept pace with all people. So, the fact that there are more buyers have nothing to do with price increases?
Developers would waste no time lowering their prices if they met price resistence.

[macrodome2]

Originally Posted by jean-lissette

Prices have not risen by buyers...that doesn't happen. It's the builders that increase pricing.


More buyers don't automatically increase pricing models. That's absurd. The developers have increased prices in this market because they can, not because they have to...it's phony greed
and sales people have fanned the flames of inflated pricing.


Let me be specific. There is no believable evidence that cost of raw materials has exponentially risen, thus the necessity to pass on those increases to the buyer of the house. Similarly, there is little credible evidence to suggest that the availability and cost to labor and dramatically increased either. Labor costs are the major component in margins in most business.


I don't see the present increases in raw materials and labor sufficiently inflated to coincide with the pricing models that are now in the housing market .


Additionally, most all of the acquired unimproved land that is presently being developed seems to have been acquired years and decades ago at much lower prices.


The housing market is not a pure economic model. In fact, it can be very bogus. That's the essential reality.


Developers also use economies of scale in standardizing or cookie-cutting en masse components of their models in order to cut costs. For example the same roof trusses are pre-ordered and used in 4 or 5 basic house designs. C/D plywood is C/D plywood...cheap. Concrete block is dirt cheap. PVC pipe and glue is cheap. SPF stud pricing is fairly stable. Concrete pours are relatively stable and cheap.

I know this is you Shekie, but I do have to ask- why in the world would the developers not charge what the market will bear?