What does a $1 mil house look like in Redwood City?
Last August, Burbed posed this question:
What does a $1 mil house look like in Redwood City? [Burbed.com]
Well, a few short months later, the answer may for 610 Acacia Ln may look like this:
Oh come on, you should’ve tried harder. You were so close to $1 mil! That’s the magic number for The Real Bay Area - two engineer households, with 2 kids in school creating Web 2.0 startups can easily afford that.
Redwood City… tsk tsk.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:34 am
…nice example of quick market movements. If you are going to buy or sell house you should expect situation like this. Even, in this special situation (100000,- decrease is 1/10 of the price). But if you take all market factors (both micro & macro,…)into a consideration you could at least predict which way the price is going to evolve. In my opinion, comparative market analysis is one of the tools that can help. Simple description of this tool you can find also on West Toronto Realtor or similar pages.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Wow! $900k for a 1300 square foot home, no mention of a view(?), 1976 style and no pool??? What a shocking slap of reality for what is happening down there.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Watch this great video on this house from the Realtor, complete with lovely piano melodies……It’s like a vision of Paradise!!
http://www.techvidsite.com/video/AnIMvaNaOB8
February 19th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Predicting the future of million dollar shit-shacks is all well and good.
What I’m more curious about is what the future holds for livable areas like Atherton, Portola Valley, Los Altos, Saratoga etc.
(I don’t consider Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Cupertino etc tolerable any longer - they are overcrowded in my book.)
The sparser areas have had price increases by factors similar to the other areas. When prices of denser areas drop, will there be a comparable drop in the more rural (and expensive) areas?
What’s the statistical argument for your conclusion one way or the other? Thanks in advance for any insights.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Name, please don’t ask us to do your homework for you.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:09 am
This one is sold already:
1/29/2008 $875,000 Grant Deed Resale Lindner, Matthew Ip, Lawrence P H 675571621
10/6/2004 $851,000 Grant Deed Resale Kostrikin M & L 1999 Trust Lindner, Matthew 112652370
The price was flat during the past 3 years.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Chris, what do you mean 1976 style ? There are two listings, one says the age is 85 years, the other says circa 1976 … Maybe that is a typo from something that is handwritten. If it’s circa 1926, that would be 82 years … Judging for the looks of it, I would guess 1926 over 1976.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Personally, I’d go for the $1.5M shack on 3/4 acre. (263 Ferndale Way, http://emeraldhillsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/263-ferndale-way.html). If I’m going to buy an old vacation cottage, I’d like it to still look like a 1920’s vacation cottage.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Wow, WestTorontoRealtor really did a good job of disguising that advertisment as some sort of commentary!
February 19th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Yeah, I just edited his comment to change the link location…
February 19th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
It looks like both 610 Acacia and 263 Ferndale were priced for the value of the dirt. Acacia is 12k sq ft, and Ferndale is twice that. The target for both of these is probably a contractor to build another monster home and resell it for $2.5M or more…
February 19th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Good work there burbed. This cheezy constant promotion is one of the reasons realtors are the most hated profession in California. I half expect the junk mail king from my area “Rob the realtor- Hi I am Rob Smith but you can just call me Rob the Realtor, ready to assist you with your RE needs bla bla” to show up here.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
that emerald hills shack might be on 3/4 acre but be careful at how much usable land is there. Emerald hills used to be county land and you needed a septic tank too. It flooded in the winters etc and the lots were usually little cliffs with only 1/4 of the lot as buildable.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Another age = ” -” gem.
Yeah, I’d bet on 80+ years old.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
> Emerald hills used to be county land and you needed a septic tank too.
> It flooded in the winters etc and the lots were usually little cliffs with
> only 1/4 of the lot as buildable.
Fine, spoil my fantasy of owning property in Redwood City.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Step 1: Buy land in Redwood City
Step 2: Wait for rain to cause the hillside to collapse
Step 3: Now you live in Palo Alto and your house is worth 3x as much!
February 20th, 2008 at 10:16 am
There is no license requirement for architects in the Bay Area…and this is what you end up with.
February 20th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Emerald Hills is a desirable area, with good K-8 schools, and has come a long way in the last 30 years. On the peninsula the general rule of thumb is
-Don’t buy east of 101, redwood shores might be an exception except for the whole liquefaction issue
-East of El Camino, if you speak Spanish, you are golden
-West of El Camino, you are now getting places
-West of Alameda, this is the place to be
-West of 280, you are a venture capitalist
As for mud slides, most of the area in the hills extending up through Belmont and into San Carlos is primarily rock and shale, you need a sledge hammer to plant something.
February 20th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Too bad the commute from West of Alameda and West of 280 is such a PITA
February 20th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Back when I was living at Jefferson & Alameda in RWC, I would get to 280 by going up Farm Hill Boulevard. Those three months did more damage to my brakes than the three years before that.