CELEBRITY FAME! This house in Redwood City could make you a millionaire!
477 Topaz St, Redwood City
$585,000
* Status: Active
* Bedroom: 2
* Bathroom: 1
* Year Built: 1952
* Lot Size: 2625
* Square Footage: 700
* List Date: 4/3/2008
* Garage Spaces: 1
Charming cottage is move-in ready. This well-maintained home is absolutely spotless with many updates throughout. Fully remodeled kitchen has granite counters and custom tile; all stainless appliances with gas stove, microwave, dish washer and refrigerator. Furnace is 2 years old and water heater is 1 year old. Front and back yards are gorgeous. Dual-paned windows throughout.Price reduced to sell.
Why did I pick this house to feature? After all, there’s nothing wrong with with it. It’s just your usual
$835 per square foot house in the geographic Bay Area.
Here’s what long time Burbed reader Jeff had to say when he sent this in a few weeks back:
477 Topaz St. is the least expensive home in Mt. Carmel, and for that matter the entire 94062 ZIP code which also encompasses Woodside. I rented an apartment on Topaz so I’m quite familiar with this area.. it’s attractive, and Red Morton Park is nice, but John Gill is only a so-so school and you get a lot of drunks riding their motorcycles around at 3 am.
So far so good. It’s $835, has lots of bikers passing by, but shares a great zip code.
But wait, there’s more!
Last sold in 2005 for $550K. That’s some sweet appreciation! I googled the address and the results were enlightening:
http://jasondickinson.com/MyResume.html
It’s official: Redwood City is the place to be if you win big on a game show.
That’s right! This house was owned by a high school teacher who ended up winning $250,000 on Who Wants to Be a Millionare? in 2000!
Wowsers!
No wonder this house is going for $835 per square foot. It’s like buying a house that George Washington or Dennis Rodman slept in. You can’t put a price on fame like that.
And, even better, buying this house is like being on the show - except you’re guaranteed to win when the price doubles in a few years!
May 14th, 2008 at 6:52 am
This house is amazing click on link and then click on all pictures. This house is so small that you need a magnifying glass to see the pictures in real life. Now thats funny…..
May 14th, 2008 at 8:33 am
I’m not paying more than $500 per square foot unless it has a porthole.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:54 am
The most overpriced/expensive/worthless homes are small homes like this on under-sized lots. Homes in the median price range (700K - 800K) generally suck also. To get a better deal, you need to leave the crowd behind.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Surely burbed understands that $/sqft tends to be skewed high for tiny homes because the price is for the lot. What’s the $/sqft of an empty lot going for $400,000? Infinity?
I have to say this is a fine piece of investigative reporting by the reader who submitted the house.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:00 am
You mean to get a decent house you need to pay over a 1 million? Probably true, but it certainly doesn’t say much for quality of life in the Bay Area. Basically, unless you are a doctor, lawyer, IT professional, or other very well compensationed individual making $225,000 +, you are living in a cra* shack. Again, I don’t disagree, but it certainly means quality of life in the Bay Area ain’t all that great for 90% of the population.
Reason #1 why prices for “average” to “above-average” homes will fall considerably - without “fake” money, there aren’t enough buyers to support current price levels, especially at the 700k - 1.2k price point, many of which homes were bought by people with very good jobs (100k to 175k) but yet still had to purchase using “creative” financing. That financing no longer available, there simply aren’t enough buyers to keep that market at its current level.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:36 am
R,
What I’m saying is that you will get more for your money starting at $1M.
I don’t think doctors, lawyers and IT professionals make up only 10% of the population here, but in any case, many move-up buyers can get into $1M+ homes without huge incomes. The trick is you need to get into the pipeline as early as possible, and wait for your turn to move up the ladder, so to speak. The people who are constantly waiting, hoping for a catastrophic price drop are just waiting for good luck to fall into their laps, which will not happen.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:19 am
RealEstater: The move up theory where many buyers can get into $1M+ homes without huge incomes is flawed thinking. As long as house prices rise faster than your income it will be more difficult to move up to a better house. To understand this consider a simple example
Imagine you are just starting out in life after college and you have bought a condo for $300,000 about 5 times your $60,000 income. Now if you have been above average in your career and your income increased at 6.5% a year you would have an income of about $90,000. If home prices had increased faster than your income at 12% a year you are actually worse off. A single family home costing $600,000 at the start of your career (10 times income) would be worth $1.06 million (more than 10 times increased income) after five years. You will have appreciation on the condo to help you put a downpayment on the house reducing the size of your loan. But you are always much better off if home prices increased at a slower rate if you plan to move up to a more expensive home.
Now if you plan to downsize, then having house prices increase faster is better.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Sorry the above should read “Now if you have been above average in your career and your income increased at 6.5% a year you would have an income of about $82,000″…
May 14th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Don’t worry. Some dupe will overpay double for this dollhouse. There is none so blind as he who will not see…
May 14th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
No wonder this house is going for $835 per square foot. It’s like buying a house that George Washington or Dennis Rodman slept in.
———–
Now that’s a good analogy. Can a tall guy like Dennis Rodman enter through the small door of this house?
May 14th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Gavin,
In RE’s world, no one starts out without having a trust fund or some Asian parents to cover the down payment. The rest of us aren’t deserving of the Bay Area.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Bad Advice,
You forgot about all the Facebook employees who will be buying up every house in Palo Alto any day now.
I must have this house. That vine-covered arch increases its value by at least $150K.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
I am curious about RealEstater’s reasoning. He claims that Bay Area buyers get large gifts for down payments to make housing affordable. If recent buyers could afford houses why has the following happened?
1. More than half the mortgages taken out in the last few years have been neg-am or interest-only mortgages
2. There has been large drops in sales (over 50%) as prices rose
3. Foreclosures have increased significantly (over 100%) when compared with last year though starting from a low level.
Neither of the above three are indications of buyers flush with cash.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
3. Foreclosures have increased significantly (over 100%) when compared with last year though starting from a low level.
———
According to latest California Report from ForeclosureRadar, Santa Clara County foreclosure up 585% from last year.
NDF:1412
NTS:713
Sales:500
Change from March 08:47%
Change from April 07:585%
May 14th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Pralay, don’t be silly. Anywhere that is foreclosed is obviously not part of the Real Bay Area. Just start erasing those lots off the RBA map.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Pralay, don’t be silly. Anywhere that is foreclosed is obviously not part of the Real Bay Area. Just start erasing those lots off the RBA map.
———-
You are right. I forgot about it. I think that answers Gavin’s three questions:
1. Neg-am or interest-only mortgages: Only in non-RBA and outskirts.
2. 50% sale drop: Only in non-RBA and outskirts.
3. Foreclosures: Only in non-RBA and outskirts.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
>>Pralay, don’t be silly. Anywhere that is foreclosed is obviously not part of the Real Bay Area.
That is literally true.
In all of Santa Clara County, there were 500 foreclosures. That’s a totally insignificant number, when you consider how many households are NOT in foreclosure. If you consider real Bay Area, that number is so low, You are about as likely to know someone who has had their house foreclosed as you would be getting into a car accident.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Let’s not forget that Gilroy is part of Santa Clara. That place is in a world of hurt.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:21 am
In all of Santa Clara County, there were 500 foreclosures. That’s a totally insignificant number, when you consider how many households are NOT in foreclosure. If you consider real Bay Area, that number is so low, You are about as likely to know someone who has had their house foreclosed as you would be getting into a car accident.
Interesting points.
Anecdotal evidence for me has been the opposite. In September of last year was with some guys in the mortgage business from Orange County who had been living large for the past few years saw business slowing in September of last year. They even went so far as to say that foreclosures were a such a small percentage of homes it wouldn’t make a difference. Then by mid-November one of them had already packed up his business, relocated to Austin and was underwater on a rental unit.
But, I guess things are different here with the stock options being much better performers and less volatile than the likes of NovaStar and CFC. And the good counties here don’t have to worry about cities like Irvine and Santa Ana brining down the values for the desirable cities.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:50 am
The problem is there are people who don’t understand the data waving the “585%” figure.
All I can say is, if the market is really in such sad shape, why are they still unable to buy a home?
May 15th, 2008 at 6:27 am
In September of last year was with some guys in the mortgage business from Orange County who had been living large for the past few years saw business slowing in September of last year. They even went so far as to say that foreclosures were a such a small percentage of homes it wouldn’t make a difference.
———–
Watcher,
To give a perspective, total number of home sold (in regular market) last month is 608. Compare this number with the numbers of auction sales (500), Notices of Default (1412) and Notices of Trustee Sales (713). It’s not a rocket science to figure out the impact of foreclosure in regular market.
Comparing foreclosure data with total number of housing units is a laughable attempt to ignore the problem. It’s not that this kind of absurd “oh, that’s just drop in the bucket” argument is being made for first time. The guy in Orange County you mentioned is a perfect example. Some people love to live in denial, until things get under water.
Some higher end market in bay area are still unaffected by foreclosure, but there is no assurance that it is going to remain this way in future, if volume of foreclosure keeps increasing same way. It’s like saying “it did not rain this week, therefore it is not going to rain next week.”
May 15th, 2008 at 6:36 am
And the good counties here don’t have to worry about cities like Irvine and Santa Ana brining down the values for the desirable cities.
————
BTW, did Irvine bring down other cities in Orange County? I thought it is other way around. It was one of those “desirable cities”.
Secondly, can “undesirable cities” bring down “desirable cities”? I thought it would be impossible. Example, RBA.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Well said, Pralay, in comparing apples to apples instead of oranges, or as some in this group would misdirect, to armpits.
Unlike Santa Ana (which is a pit), Irvine was considered a desirable location and had its premium sections such as Turtle Rock. ALL of them are underwater now, because so much of that region was tied to the funny mortgage money business.
Here’s my prediction of which areas will be removed from the RBA next, in order, with RBA defined as “where prices never go down.”
- Redwood City 94062 and everything north
- the 10 good blocks of Santa Clara near Mayfield Park in CUSD
- Sunnyvale 94087 non-CUSD
- Mountain View 94040
- Mountain View 94041 (94043 is not RBA)
- What little of San Jose was in RBA (some 95125, all 95129)
- Sunnyvale CUSD
- Los Altos 94022
- Cupertino 95014 except SW hills/Kennedy MS
- Los Gatos (I don’t know the zips, but it will be one and then the other)
- West Menlo Park (east is not RBA)
- South Palo Alto including everything east of Middlefield not already kicked out of RBA
- Saratoga
- Palo Alto, Middlefield to El Camino, central (east of Middlefield already ruled non RBA)
- Los Altos 94024
- Woodside/Portola Valley/Los Altos Hills
- rest of Palo Alto
Remember, premium places mean people can afford to wait until prices come back. Prices are down in the good areas, but people are choosing not to sell at market rates.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
I wonder if General Tommy Franks would update his comment about Doug Feith if he met Real Estater.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
I wonder if General Tommy Franks would update his comment about Doug Feith if he met Real Estater.
Oooh, that sent me running to teh Google. But tell us, what do you really think?
Hint: Page 281.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Oooh, that sent me running to teh Google. But tell us, what do you really think?
Hint: Page 281.
————
Do Tommy Franks and Douglas Feith live in management class RBA with smart people? I guess not. Let them win Medal Of Failure or run the Office of Crooked Plans, but they are deprived from water their lawns in RBA.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:26 am
madhaus,
- the 10 good blocks of Santa Clara near Mayfield Park in CUSD
but in a previous thread you had me placed out of the RBA, wrong zip? (Santa Clara stops at Lawrence) Did the RBA expand since then? Does it have a heartbeat? (also known as May 15 bounce)
May 16th, 2008 at 3:28 am
By the way it’s Maywood park. Mayfield is a Palo Alto thingy.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
but in a previous thread you had me placed out of the RBA, wrong zip? (Santa Clara stops at Lawrence) Did the RBA expand since then? Does it have a heartbeat? (also known as May 15 bounce)
DreamT, sorry about getting the name of the park wrong. At one time those 10 blocks were in the RBA. At one time all of Santa Clara/CUSD was in. It’s slowly going out with the foreclosure tide. Don’t worry, my shack’s following along after yours.
May 17th, 2008 at 5:49 am
[...] areas will be removed from the Real Bay Area next for falling home prices? CELEBRITY FAME! This house in Redwood City could make you a millionaire! [Burbed.com] madhaus Says: May 15th, 2008 at 1:37 [...]
August 10th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
477 Topaz St., $555,000, 07-09-08, 700 SF, 2 BR, J. & C. Heit to Cristo Trust; 2005:$550,000
Sold at a loss after commission..