Address: 1321 Chelsea - 90404Details: 2 bed/2.5 bath 1,602 sq ft "condo alternative", 1,642 sq ft lot, "updated"
Description: Updated New York-style city house has a classy, contemporary flair, an ideal condo alternative. The first floor has an open floor plan, wood floors, high ceilings & living area centered on a cool pot-bellied stove. A nice-sized kitchen, dining area, powder rm & laundry room finish this level. Upstairs is a loft-like, open media/family room, two bedrooms incl. a master, two baths & office space. Very private & large roof deck where treetop to city lights views can be enjoyed. Great location.
Previous Purchase: 1/4/05 - $840,000
Listing History: 1/7/10 - $939,000
Reduced down to - $795,000
SOLD: 6/11/10 - $750,000
This sales price is 11% lower than the very early 2005 sales price. So in rollback terms we have to say that this is maybe in the mid or early 2004 range or so (prices were rising really fast back then and I'm assuming they were going up at a rate greater than 11%/year for this property back then).
I'm very interested to see if we will start to observe some more downward price momentum in the near future.
Why does this blog put the majority of it's focus on condo's, South of Wilshire etc. properties? Has everyone missed that the market hit bottom in December in the high end ($2-$4 mil) range North of Montana. The Huntington, Alphabets and Bluffs area's of the Palisades are en fuego ala 2006. Distress? Not in 90272.
ReplyDeletePersonally I like seeing the lower priced properties as that is what I am looking for and will most likely buy (unless I win the lottery -- one can hope). I think Warchest does a pretty good job of covering the different areas of SM. For awhile it seemed like the area by the SM airport/Pico was getting more coverage, etc. Give it time -- Warchest does a good job of covering all of Santa Monica.
ReplyDeletethanks cosanostra for stopping by to add your totally unsubstantiated and totally untrue bs to the discussion.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Cosa, speak without thinking often?
ReplyDeleteAt least this house is much larger and much newer than the last one. It is strange looking from the outside but looks like a much better deal at least from an age and price/sf perspective.
ReplyDeleteWow, this comment thread is like a throwback to 2007 or early 2008. Makes you almost miss those times, eh?
ReplyDeleteIn response to the first comment I would like to highlight several things. First, quite a while ago I changed the headline or motto of this blog. It used to be something along the lings of "if you aren't embarrassed by your offer it isn't low enough". Now you will see that I dug up an old quote of mine which I believe we all need to keep in mind.
Second, you come talking about a lack of distress in some zip code numbered 90272. This is the SANTA MONICA distress monitor so I'm not too concerned with 90272 (although I'm sure if I wanted to I would be able to show plenty of rollbacks and softness where that is). Additionally, condos and south of Wilshire properties make up the vast majority of real estate in Santa Monica so I find them highly valuable in looking at overall trends -- although I will admit that I am likely to focus much less on condos in the future more as a matter of personal preference than anything else (I might do another post talking about this in the near future).
And if you wanna get into the high end Santa Monica arena, simply look several posts down on this very blog where I highlight 628 24th which is a massive house in a great location which just suffered a late 2004 rollback. I would call that some distress and I think it might be a bit premature to talk about bottoms or at least markets that are "en fuego".
I will however echo some of your bullishness (or at least try to curb the enthusiasm of the largest bears) by saying that I think the big decline is generally over and that clearly the market has stabilized. I don't see another huge leg down but given many factors which I talk about here I think there may be a slow, boring creep downwards for a while.
We've reached a pricing area where a $250,000/yr salary can finally get you into a small shack at current, all-time-low interest rates. Meanwhile, all the housing-related stimulus is being withdrawn from the system.
ReplyDeleteBoth these points suggest to me that we still have another significant leg down, not a slow, boring creep (although the rest of 2010 will likely be boring).
Again, if it took 6 years to resolve the 1990 bubble, why would we think the biggest bubble of all time would resolve any more quickly?
Compare to this one?
ReplyDeleteBigger lot better future or bigger trouble?
$675,900
1931 22ND St
Santa Monica, CA 90404
BEDS: 3
BATHS: 2
SQ. FT.: 1,282
$/SQ. FT.: $527
LOT SIZE: 6,974 Sq. Ft.
PROPERTY TYPE: Residential, Single Family
STYLE: Traditional
YEAR BUILT: 1953
COMMUNITY: Santa Monica
COUNTY: Los Angeles
There was a massive bubble from 2000 to 2006 that saw prices go up by as much as 200%. It is now beyond arguing that the cause for this runup was cheap money, easy credit, bubble mania, and other factors having nothing to do with fundamentals like price-to-rent ratios in zip codes or median salary-to-rent ratios.
ReplyDeleteThe bubble is slowly deflating, with the government throwing everything it's got at slowing down the crash with moratoriums on foreclosure, zero percent rates, money to the FHA to keep the bubble going, new homebuyer tax credit, etc. All this is slowing down the crash but it can't prevent a correction. In the end the prices will come down to supportable ratios supported by actual salary levels, documented income and the stagnant rents.
There are three trends that suggest further significant declines.
ReplyDelete1) Foreclosure tsumani still rolling along. It's funny when the media reports the foreclosure rate is declining and the worst is over... they mean "declining to a level which would have been considered mind-boggling prior to 2007, and which completely dwarfs the worst days of the real estate bust of the 1990s."
2) California budget crisis. There has to be some combination of drastic spending cuts, tax hikes, or California defaulting on its obligations.
If spending cuts, there will be fewer people with jobs willing to buy homes or keep paying the mortgage they already have.
If tax hikes, then high-income earners who aren't tied to California should seriously wonder if this is the time to buy a house here.
If California defaults and retirees find themselves with less pension than they thought they had, it will increase the pressure on their other assets including real estate.
3) The Boomers have started retiring. As a group, they have not saved nearly enough for retirement. As a group, their houses are their largest assets. Many of them will clearly want to or have to downsize.
I think the most affected areas will be in the middle to upper-middle range: larger houses in neighborhoods that were affordable in the '70s, but may be expensive now, near schools and jobs.
At the same time, real estate on the low end: smaller places, or in less desirable areas, far from schools and jobs, or in less expensive states, may get a boost from the Boomers, since the retirees do have to live somewhere.
Oh' wish I was not too late for this post. My cousin is looking for a condo like this. I wonder if it is still available.
ReplyDeletecondo Philippines