What does a million dollars buy you in San Mateo these days?
2181 Bunker Hill Dr, San Mateo, CA 94402 MLS# 80828749 – Property Details
$1,048,888
* Status: Active
* Bedroom: 4
* Bathroom: 2
* Year Built: 1958
* Lot Size: 9310
* Square Footage: 1970
* List Date: 8/18/2008
* Garage Spaces: 2
* MLS#: 80828749
This spacious and expanded Highlands Eichler home is situated on a large level lot. Home offers the family the ability to grow. Ideal four bedroom home with two bath, family room, living room, and dinning area perfect to entertain. Well designed floor plan that has been expanded. Good size home that need attention. A must see for the Highlands fan. Sellers are motivated.
“There can be only one!”
Oh wait… Highlands fan. Misread that.
I’m a bit perplexed to read that the sellers are anxious. Why might that be?
Let’s take a look inside shall we:
Hm. Judging by these photos, I’m going to guess that this house was last remodeled in… 1958.
But still… why would the sellers be anxious to sell this? What’s the skinny on this house?
September 11th, 2008 at 7:17 am
Looks like a million dollar home to me! Actually not bad for a million bucks.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:23 am
HIghlander, not Highlands, burbed.
Best pickup line ever (from the movie): “I am Connor MacLeod of the Clan MacLeod. I was born in 1518, in the village of Glenfinnan, on the shores of Loch Shiel…and I am Immortal.”
September 11th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Personally, rather than invest in RE in the RBA, I’d put money in REW, double inverse tech. In a year, I think you’d be much wealthier.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:33 am
Looks like the most expensive double-wide trailer I’ve ever seen.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:08 am
RE – this place has lost it’s luck (three fewer 8s in the price) but the price went down to $1,018,000. Why don’t you buy it as an investment since it looks like a good value to you?
Why ARE the owners anxious? Hmm, they bought it in 1994. It’s assessed at $200k so we have an idea of purchase price… A refi in 1997 for $204k. A refi in 2003 for $560k (variable interest rate too). Then what COULD be a divorce in 2006; title was transferred from “him” to “her.” Not sure what that means. Not sure why the owner would be anxious – using that phrase in a listing these days only seems to chum the water and I think it’s a bad idea.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:44 am
#5, I second that. Now is a great time for him to buy and shut up.
The overhead wood beam is pretty bad structural design, though I would let WG to comment on it. In some culture believes living under such densely laid wood beam is not only bad fengshui but bad to health. My rental has quite a few of those but is still much better.
I think the agent should say “NOT a short sell” to gain sympathy, motivated is not good enough.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:52 am
HIghlander, not Highlands, burbed.
Yeah I know… that was part of the joke.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:56 am
I only know two things about that area: the deer will eat anything you plant down to the nubs, and the scenery is awesome. This house backs out into a forest. Sadly, from this squat, dumpy little house you won’t be able to see the canyon or much of anything.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:59 am
This neighorhood has 50% households making under 80k and 20% over 150k, but I am sure this particular beauty is for the 10% management class making over 250k, you know, like tech historian.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:07 am
I used to work close to 92/Ralston, deer would come up at night into the 100+ capacity parking lot, and a coyote or a lose german shepherd was scavenging at 1am sometimes when I went home in the crazy work days, scary to walk to my car when it is 50m away.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:13 am
>>Why don’t you buy it as an investment since it looks like a good value to you?
Let me get this right. You’re suggesting me to buy a million+ property to rent out?
September 11th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Well what a BEAUT we have here!
There’s definatly an Asian theme going on. To start there are the excessive 8s. The house is also golden. But, it even gets better! At least the listing agent appears to have graduated the 7th grade as they are proferring what wisdom the type of which could only appear inside a fortune cookie: “Home offers the family the ability to grow.” Now, is that this home or homes in general? Perhaps this array of home depot sheds offers a better ability to grow than another home without a dangerous staircase.
Not only that; the “well designed floor plan” has been expanded. Was it well designed before the expansion or after? Looks like both to me! I’d imagine that the “expansion” was built into the blueprints when the home was first built. Not only was it well designed to start, it’s still well designed as the expansion was always part of the plan. Certainly not
I think a nice young foreign face boogler will pick this “golden opportunity” up lickety split.
BTW, this is a perfect example of the type of homes that I believe are the next to drop. Motivated sellers are smart – they should get out before the funny money works its way out of the system.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Oh, this place (one of the San Mateo Highland Eichlers) certainly has been remodeled since 1958, and not in good ways.
* Original mahogany walls either replaced or (ick) painted over. Usually a sign that the house was a rental at some point and got too much damage.
* Icky kitchen remodel from the 1970′s. The original Eichler kitchens weren’t very nice, but the combination of the cheap cabinets and black appliances make it look like someone did a really quick gutting of the kitchen. The original kitchen should have had some sort of kitchen island, so the fact that all the kitchen’s pushed against the wall with the recliners visible in front make me think someone really messed that kitchen up.
* Original aluminum sliding doors replaced with multi-pane french door. Sorry, doesn’t fit contemporary house.
* Kitchen light fixtures don’t fit the house. Ugh.
* Cheap country-style ceiling fixture from Home Depot. Double ugh.
* Original garage doors that matched the siding replaced with cheap roll-up. The house has gone from classic Eichler to cheap knockoff of any handy ranch.
My guess is that the house was a rental in the 1980′s, and had cheap fixups done. These days, the buyers looking at Eichlers have been looking for houses with more original fixtures and conditions (and they’re usually willing to do insane amounts of work to keep the bathroom and kitchens original. I know people who’ve had new sliding door cabinets fabricated so they keep the original style. For houses like this that got bad remodels in the last twenty years, they tend to stay on the market longer and (hopefully) get bought by someone who guts them and makes them into modern showpieces. We’ve seen this happen several times in our Eichler neighborhood (in dirt-cheap San Jose).
The scary thing is that the price probably isn’t that far off. Prices for the Eichlers in the San Mateo Highlands have been above a million for years now because of the location and schools.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Here’s what this home reminds me of:
http://raleigh.craigslist.org/reb/818059058.html
September 11th, 2008 at 9:53 am
RE, yes I am.
I’m not going to search for it like your stalkers but you once stated you were looking for an investment property up to $1M in price.
(shrug) I really don’t care.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:00 am
“Here’s what this home reminds me of:
http://raleigh.craigslist.org/reb/818059058.html”
But bob, wouldn’t you rather have a home in an especially dumpy part of the bay area for more than 10 times more? Gosh, I know I would!
more expensive = better!
September 11th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Anon,
Nah… Just look at that fabulous track lighting, the lovely hot-pink decor in the bedroom, the huge, yet very tasteful chandeliers in the kitchen, and the matching lazy boys. That’s pure California gold right there, I tell ya! You can’t get that kind of class in any other state or massed together flyoverland. Besides- I’ve heard that people who live in California double-wides are far more intellectually superior than their less fortunate cousins in places like Ohio and North Carolina…
September 11th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Well, you can get all that tasteful decor in flyover land, but you certainly can’t get the intellectual stimulation you get here!
The high price tag is testament to the extrodinary intellect found in the bay area. Who else could rationalize paying this much money for a bunch of garbage loosely organized into a home??
If you were a true bay “aryan”, you’d understand.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:26 am
None of the owners from PropertyShark seems to be Asian. Maybe they want to sucker in a stupid Asian with load cases of cash (cough corruption money).
September 11th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Ooh ooh! An additional feature is the stop sign right in front of the house! That means that traffic won’t be screaming past your place! I suppose there will be a few screeching brakes every now and again, but how often can that be on a rarely-traveled road like Bunker Hill Dr? I think the yellow paint alone makes this place worth much more than the nearby and similarly priced 1500 Tarrytown or 1244 Laurel Hill.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:34 am
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco-County/320-LONDON-St-94112/home/776991
Can someone tell me what’s going on for this house? What happen to the little doll house at front? (Or is it a window?) How about the second picture? That is supposed to be the back? I think that is the back of another house, I don’t even see a house.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:35 am
>>I’m not going to search for it like your stalkers but you once stated you were looking for an investment property up to $1M in price.
Know the difference between “up to $1M” and $1M+”?
You’re right about the stalkers. Definitely can’t buy it now.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:35 am
SanMatean, it looks like the stop sign is in front of the house next door. Anyway, I think it’s a fair tradeoff to have no rear neighbors except for the coyotes and the deer.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:42 am
I especially like the ” Offers the family the ability to grow” That’s right, if you buy this thing, you and your loved one can start poppin’ em out and fill the entire home with your brood!
September 11th, 2008 at 10:45 am
“You’re right about the stalkers. Definitely can’t buy it now.”
Ain’t that the truth. I’m one step ahead of you and have already purchased this home.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:20 am
anon says,
>>I’m one step ahead of you
Stop kidding yourself. Look at the timestamp of the first post compared to the time you showed up. Looks like you had trouble getting up this morning.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:26 am
someone didn’t get enough sleep
September 11th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Soft core guys get up late. Don’t you guys need to be up early to send your kids to school in the morning?
September 11th, 2008 at 11:46 am
anon couldn’t have purchased this house because I just submitted my offer. But I’m not willing to trade more than 3 of my guitars for it.
And there is no stop sign in front of this house, it’s 2 doors down at Bennington. I can’t decide which I like more, having a house on a freeway exit, or finding out how much worse San Mateo schools are than Cupertino’s.
“Sellers are motivated.” Right, so motivated they dropped the price a whopping $30K.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:48 am
RealEstater – Who, me? Our son’s 10 month old and he won’t sleep until 11:30pm. And my 8h of sleep are sacred.:D What’s that “soft core” reference you keep mentioning? Do you work in porn?
September 11th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
“Stop kidding yourself. Look at the timestamp of the first post compared to the time you showed up. Looks like you had trouble getting up this morning.”
Seriously! Becuase the first thing I do in the morning is post on burbed. Meaning: timestamps don’t necessarily mean you were up first.
Having said that, I’ll freely admit I was fast asleep when you were posting your ass-crack-early comments. I’m sorry you have to get up so early.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
I looked at the San Mateo recording office entries, it looks like “he” had an affadavit of death filed, and there’s another woman’s name, not that of the woman who had the Revocable Living Trust who held the house, so I suspect that’s his daughter. So the house could be being sold for any number of reasons. Another Prop 13 exception about to clear out.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Hey you got to give RE gold medal for that. I got up at 7:20, send kid to school, then arrive at work, then come to burbed, and it is already 8:30am. If I were to check on burbed first thing in the morning to find out what insane things he came up with I would’ve made it at 7:20am, silver medalist.
Then again, does burbed live in east coast? What kind of crazy schedule is 5:30am posting?
September 11th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Know the difference between “up to $1M” and $1M+”?
RE – yes, I know the difference but really, $18,000? Chump change in the scheme of things. And I bet if you offered $1M they’d take it. After all, I’m sure you have a big down payment and excellent credit.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
>>If I were to check on burbed first thing in the morning to find out what insane things he came up with I would’ve made it at 7:20am, silver medalist.
Seriously, I don’t dig these low blows. When did I say anything insane here? A lot of things I said were attacked and later shown to be true. The reason some people think it’s “insane” is because they are totally clueless themselves. As I keep saying, look at the outcome. If you want to rent forever and never be able to improve your economic status, then keep following the logic of those people who are in that situation.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Quick calculations:
Assume: 10% down
900,000 for 30 years @ 5.75 = 5,252.16
918,000 for 30 years @ = 5,357.20
Delta = 105.04
September 11th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
$58.43 -> rounding to $60, take $6 plus half which is $3, obtain $9, like round numbers to I’ll tip $9.57
Lately I’ve seen these 15%, 20%, 25% pre-calculated at the bottom of the receipt, but I still go by “slightly more than 15%”
A waiter’ll have to go out of his way or give valuable and disinterested advice to earn 20% or more.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Sir, you consistently dish out low blows on pralay all the time.
Also, the insane things “he” came up with are the insane home listings BURBED comes up with. Not you.
At least you’ve gone from “Everything I’ve said” to “A lot of things I said.” I’ll call that progress. Maybe I’ll celebrate by going to Dynasty tonight.
Remember: Mortgage != wealth.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Anon, looks like we know who is clueless.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Ahah, wrong thread. This one thread here is where RealEstater recoils, not where we’re discussing tips. Sorry for being a hair in the soup.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Those pre-calculated tip amounts are clever. They are based on the POST TAX amount.
So if you use the 15% amount printed you’re actually giving a 25% tip.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
When you live in the RBA, you can afford to be
September 11th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
#36, there are still 5.75% loan for 10% down on 900k mortgage these days? Wow, which suicidal maniac bank is that?
The $5200 is only barely able to afford you the rent for a 4/3 $1.5m Santana row condo, you can have this as equity in the world famous/desirable/popular San Mateo hills. Think about that.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
RE,
I’d like to clear up the fact that not only is there nothing wrong with renting, even if it means that you do so for your entire life( which many do) but in most cases, a person who rents versus buys will often come out just as well, and in many cases- better than those who buy.
A person who has rented for the past 5-6 years has been paying a minimum of 50% less than what the avg “homeowner” pays. I pay 1/3rd. Of the last 2.5-3 years, homes in the Bay Area have been losing value. But I am saving just the same every single month.
If you compare what the avg renter saves over the avg homeowner month to month over time- particularly in the BA where rent has been immensely cheaper than RE for years, what the avg homeowner gains in value in their home ( which isn’t extractable unless you sell or take out a home equity loan), they come out pretty much the same, and perhaps more in the case of the renter. I’ve saved up more in 5 years than what the avg homeowner I’ve met claims they’ve “made” in 10. Yes. That’s right. All cash, all expendable.
In any regards, Its a myth to claim that renting is inferior in any sense. I beg to differ.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
bob – Strange how most homeowners prefer fellow homeowners rather than renters as neighbors. All the more true in a condominium complex. They’re probably all delusional.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Burbed: Sorry, but your math is off. If sales tax is 10%, and the pre-tax tip is 15%, the post-tax tip is actually 16.5%.
Example: On a $100 check:
Pre-tax = 0.15($100) = $15
Post-tax = 0.15($110) = $16.50
September 11th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
It’s fashionable to add percentages rather than multiply them. RealEstater started the trend.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
DreamT,
Oh, is that so? Hmmm. Well, I’ve been renting the same house for almost 5 years. We have neighbors over for BBQ all the time since we actually have a larger yard for their kids to play in. I repaired my other neighbors car in the driveway. We all know each other by name. Isn’t that funny? I’m supposed to be some dirty, poor, disheveled renter that according to you, homeowners despise. Maybe in your neighborhood. Not mine. Then again, I don’t live inn the RBA.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
bob – Are you trying to refute a fact by exaggerating it (“despise”) then cite your own experience?
September 11th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
I hit [Enter] too quickly.
bob this is not due to renters being poorer, disheveled or dirty. It’s simply due to the fact that owners have a greater incentive to care for the property and the neighborhood. After all a renter does not need to sell when he moves on.
Does it make more sense to you now? Can you look beyond your navel?
September 11th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
I’ve gotta stop smoking crack during lunch.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
anon, what were you getting at in #36? $18k is less than a 2% difference…
If you cough up over $5200/month, what’s another $105? We’re talking shades of crazy for this dumpy looking place.
September 11th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Nomadic, I was supporting your assertion that $18,000 on this “million dollar” home is not that significant. RE’s arbitrary distinction between a million dollar home and a million and eighteen thousand dollar home is silly. If this actually were a good deal, he wouldn’t have responded the way he did.
Shades of crazy indeed.
Put another way, I believe this to be exactly the home RE has been waiting for.
September 11th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
From my perspective, the fact that homeowners prefer other homeowners stems from the renters and the owners.
Renters typically have less of an inclination to keep the home up because it is not theirs. Renters also do not expect to be there as long (typically) so they often don’t care as much about their reputation in the community. As a result, they are more inclined to do inconsiderate things like have loud parties, park all over the street, etc.
Landlord homeowners have less of an inclination to keep the home up because they do not have to look at it every day. Some will keep it up, of course, but almost nobody would put the same effort into a home as if they were living in it. Brown spots on the lawn? Who cares? I don’t have to look at it.
Both factors contribute to a less well taken care of property. Homeowners want to live in a community that is well taken care of. (pride of homeownership!) I would imagine that this is the primary reason homeowners prefer to live near other homeowners.
September 11th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Oh, is that so? Hmmm. Well, I’ve been renting the same house for almost 5 years. We have neighbors over for BBQ all the time since we actually have a larger yard for their kids to play in. I repaired my other neighbors car in the driveway. We all know each other by name. Isn’t that funny? I’m supposed to be some dirty, poor, disheveled renter that according to you, homeowners despise. Maybe in your neighborhood. Not mine. Then again, I don’t live inn the RBA.
I don’t live in the RBA either, though it’s getting there with all the biotech. I’ve felt nervous because my complex is charging new tenants $225 more than I currently pay for rent, and they still always rent out every unit. Well, I spoke with my landlady and she mentioned that for existing tenants, they only increase rent by about $50 at a time and it’s based on how long you’ve been there. I’ll still only be paying $1325 in 2018 if they keep the same schedule.. that’s almost as good as rent control, and we don’t pay for water or trash removal. Of course, ownership could change at any time, but I can’t see why I’d want to buy if renting is going to be this stable.
September 11th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
>>Nomadic, I was supporting your assertion that $18,000 on this “million dollar” home is not that significant. RE’s arbitrary distinction between a million dollar home and a million and eighteen thousand dollar home is silly.
It’s not significant but you have to draw the line somewhere. I’m fairly disciplined in terms of staying within my rules and my means. Rental property vs primary residence are different games. For rental property you want something you can give to a Pralay to cook curry in everyday and still be able to sleep at night.
September 11th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
RE you’ve sunk to an all new low.
September 11th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
“RE you’ve sunk to an all new low.”
And that’s saying something. What a jackass bigot.
September 11th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
He must be regretting he’d made that statement, I asked that question expecting him to spin like he always does, not respond or change to ask you to provide something. When you are spinning, the important thing is not to commit to anything or give out any useful information, so that it won’t come back and bite your ass. Some sort of management type, he would get chowed up in a second in the politics.
September 11th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
This house isn’t bad, the payments would be about 5.5K as someone else mentioned- which is slightly more than renting. The problem is that Bunker Hill is a pretty major street up there and this appears to be on a stop sign. If you look on a map, bunker hill doesn’t go anywhere, except for the Sawyer Camp trail that is. And this Sawyer Camp trail is a major thoroughfare, believe me.
September 11th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Actually yesterday’s misogynistic attacks on madhaus (maxi pad?) and French women rate even lower in my opinion. Sadly for him, nobody bit.
September 11th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
WG, are you serious? Objectively speaking – you really think this would fetch that much rent at market? This is not an attack but an honest inquiry.
I know rents are up, but $5,000 for 1900 square feet??
September 11th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
What do you mean by slightly more than renting?
I don’t think this house would rent for more than 4k, if that, given the current pictures.
If you updated the kitchen (and bathroom too maybe), cleaned up the place, painted it nicer color, and took pictures with nice furniture, then maybe you could get close to 5k, or, but I don’t think you can get 5k as is, or 4k for that matter.
Just look at craigslist for the $3500+ category, and you will see the competition. As for how much money to upgrade is needed to get 5k, I don’t know, I heard contractors charge a lot less now than 2 year ago, so I don’t know.
September 11th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
I can’t imagine this would fetch more than 3500. Even that is pushing it as the place is a turd.
September 11th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
WG: 5K for rent? Totally insane. I bet a bank wouldn’t loan on that house for 10% down. Have to do 20-30% down and pay jumbo loan interest. This is a sucker buy.
September 11th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Wow looking around the neighborhood on streetview, there are a lot of contemporary homes, most of them look pretty nice from outside.
In comparison this house is a POS. Quite frankly it is a just terrible that it is like it is, all the other houses are nice, this is seriously one is seriously messed up. It doesn’t go with the architecture nearby, it is really an abomination. The price need to reflect the costs to change it to a true contemporary style, or stop advertising as an Eichler, because that is the buyer you’ll attract.
September 11th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
I saw this house about a month ago. There was a pretty nice Eichler on Tarrytown (my mid-century modern curiousity got that best of me — sold right away, btw) and I stopped here on the drive back. What a disaster inside. The picture make it look much, much nicer than it actually shows.
I know nothing about San Mateo prices (nor am I motived to learn) but there is no way this sells above $850 if it stays occupied.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
>>there are a lot of contemporary homes, most of them look pretty nice from outside. In comparison this house is a POS.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Real estate wisdom says you ought to own the crappiest house on the block, because that’s where the potential lies. If you own the nicest one on the block, the potential has been fully realized already, and you won’t make as much money.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Real estate wisdom says you ought to own the crappiest house on the block, because that’s where the potential lies. If you own the nicest one on the block, the potential has been fully realized already, and you won’t make as much money.
I can agree with that, but the big question is how much would it take to bring it up to the neighbors, the fact that some houses in better condition have sold for around the same price as this one is not comforting to someone looking to buy for such a reason. Clearly if they know contemporary architecture very well and know how to upgrade the place well, and without spending too much money then it is to their benefit. The potential price I’m not sure about, you should look at the comps, but it could be anywhere from 1.05M to 1.35M if it is done well. To me though the houses across the street also detract from this part of Bunker Hill Dr.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Rental property vs primary residence are different games. For rental property you want something you can give to a Pralay to cook curry in everyday and still be able to sleep at night.
——-
Let’s me put it this way. The kind of rundown properties I see around University Ave (except expensive homes above 3M+), I have no doubt I live in better and bigger place in Santa Clara. Of course a renter does not have equity in Palo Alto home, but I don’t think that’s a requirement for “sleep at night”. Post at September 11th, 2008 at 2:04 am and then September 11th, 2008 at 7:17 am. It’s pretty evident who is NOT sleeping well.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Nomadic, Lionel,
Aren’t you guys being a bit race conscious here? There was a cooking thread where Pralay talked about cooking curry spices everyday, then someone brought up the issue of smell. All I did was referring to something that’s been discussed before. Nobody called anyone names back then.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
DreamT,
Are you enjoying the ride on the attack bandwagon?
September 11th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
All I did was referring to something that’s been discussed before. Nobody called anyone names back then.
——-
Poor RealEstater – always an innocent victim!
September 11th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
I can be pretty un-PC but that struck me as a tad too personal. I think maybe your lack of sleep last night took a toll on you today.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Madhaus,
Another upgrade opportunity for you: Classic Communities in Palo Alto.
http://www.classiccommunities.net/ccomm/sterling/sterling_intro.html
Just opened last weekend, and I went to check it out. Two models are available. 4br at $1.49M, or 5br at $1.67M. The lower priced one would be right in your target price range.
As with most new developments, the shortcomings are small lots with closely spaced homes, and compromised location. But hey, it’s in PA, it’s new, and it’s bigger than your shack!
September 11th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
>>The kind of rundown properties I see around University Ave (except expensive homes above 3M+), I have no doubt I live in better and bigger place in Santa Clara.
I think you must be talking about University Ave. East of 101. There is no rundown property past the “Welcome to Palo Alto” sign.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
“Nomadic, Lionel,
Aren’t you guys being a bit race conscious here?”
I tend to be language conscious. When you referred to “a Pralay”, you generalized to a broader group.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
WG
Uh, thats a $3300-3500 dollar rental, which note “slightly” less than $5500.
Just like yesterday, when you stated as fact that 2200 square feet at Santana Row is a lot more than $5500, then someone posted a link from the actual apartment management firm to contradict you. Why do you plug your ridiculous rents are skyrocketing shit every day?
September 11th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
I think you must be talking about University Ave. East of 101. There is no rundown property past the “Welcome to Palo Alto” sign.
———-
I was talking about “prestigious” 94301 zipcode. They must be similar kind of things that you never knew exist – just like 2007 BBQ rule.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
> Another upgrade opportunity for you: Classic Communities in Palo Alto.
They look like a Palo Alto version of Gables End to me. $1.5M to live right next to 101? Chuck, do you really think that’s a good deal?
For $1.5M I would rather buy 2250 Amherst in South Palo Alto.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Compromised location?! That’s some spin there! This looks like the Gable’s End of Palo Alto (up against 101) but possibly without the Superfund site. But at 3x the price.
WG also left out the property taxes in his calculation. That’s almost another $1k per month. I’d choose renting over that place at $1M any day.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Herve – great minds think alike – LOL!
September 11th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Burbed, could you check if nomadic and I share the same IP address?
Also, could you add the seconds to the time stamp?
September 11th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
FYI: Some of the most expensive streets in Palo Alto are close to 101: University, Crescent, Edgewood. It’s OK to be next to 101 if it’s Palo Alto.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
LOL!!!
That place on Amherst is gorgeous! I bet they’re going for multiple offers. What’s the catch? Is it actually in a crappy school district or something?
September 11th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
> It’s OK to be next to 101 if it’s Palo Alto.
All hail the new Chuck Norris!
September 11th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Compromised location?! That’s some spin there!
——
Doesn’t it sound like coming right from a real estate agents’ dictionary? Another word from their dictionary – “well-priced”.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
>>That place on Amherst is gorgeous! I bet they’re going for multiple offers. What’s the catch? Is it actually in a crappy school district or something?
It’s an excellent school district. You’ve answered your own question. The catch is multiple offers.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
That place on Amherst is gorgeous inside. The outside looks like a warehouse. Put up some of those bright pink fabric sections like in today’s featured property and we can call it another kind of house that starts with “w.”
The new development is definitely Gables End del Norte. Ugh. At least my house is 15-20 feet from my next door neighbors. And I have lot of my own lawn to water.
Speaking of watering the lawn, I wish the lot of you would stop leading the donkey to water.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Madhaus,
You’re way too picky. Beggars can’t be choosers.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Sorry madhaus, I think we all missed the donkey when he was on vacation. It was kind of dull without him.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Palo Alto is an absolute dump. People who think otherwise really ought to get out and see the world. :p
September 11th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
That Amherst house is close to where I used to live early last year, if you’re going to live in that section of Palo Alto be very familiar with the street layout, it is really easy to get lost in there, since many streets don’t connect.
At 1.5M it certainly does seem like one of the best values in the area.
Madhaus, clearly if your budget is under 1.5M USD you are restricted to beggar’s choices.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Yeah, they ought to come down south and check out Sunnyvale! What other city has a landmark like this?
September 11th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Heck, cardinal, as long as I remain voluntarily unemployed, we might as well go on flipping welfare.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Talk about spin:
- “Voluntarily unemployed”
- “Quality of life reason”
September 11th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Did you guys notice how inventory is going up and price-per-sq-ft going down in PA?
http://www.altosresearch.com/research/CA/PALO+ALTO
September 11th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
As long as price per sqf covers building sqf rather than land, it will remain meaningless.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
All right! Fall dead cat bounce is here!
September 11th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
>price-per-sq-ft going down in PA
Pralay, the houses expanded because of the heat, hence the lower price. Expect prices to go back to normal, it’s cooler now
September 12th, 2008 at 12:04 am
As long as price per sqf covers building sqf rather than land, it will remain meaningless.
——–
It’s meaningless only if someone plans to tear down. Most of the homeowners don’t.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:09 am
Pralay, the houses expanded because of the heat, hence the lower price. Expect prices to go back to normal, it’s cooler now.
———
Now I know why ReaEstater had hard time to find BBQ spot in park. House expands and occupies the backyard. No space for BBQ in backyard.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Pralay – A house sitting on 6k sqf land will cost much less than the same one sitting on 12k sqf land, and the distribution of these varies from month to month (much less turnover with larger land). So the average or median sqf as calculated today would be skewed down each time the number of sales of large land properties increases.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:24 am
DreamT,
Your argument would be correct only if larger and larger homes are getting sold over time. Keep in mind that it is median price per sq-ft (not average).
September 12th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Pralay, I was cautioning against interpreting fluctuations. I noticed the link you posted showed a downward trend so my comment is probably irrelevant in this case.
September 12th, 2008 at 1:02 am
Wow, herve and nomadic that post was hilarious. Would you guys mind ripping on RE for a couple days so Pralay and I can take a break?
September 12th, 2008 at 1:06 am
We never rip RealEstater. He is our default entertainer.
September 12th, 2008 at 1:09 am
Wow, herve and nomadic, that post is hilarious. Would you guys mind ripping on RE for a couple days so pralay and I can take a break?
I don’t want to wake up early tomorrow. =)
September 12th, 2008 at 1:10 am
Oh, right. We are ‘interacting.’
September 12th, 2008 at 8:42 am
“Duh” answer of the week:
“A house sitting on 6k sqf land will cost much less than the same one sitting on 12k sqf land”
September 12th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Guys, give WG a break. If he thinks a neighborhood with 20% households making over 150k and 50% less than 80k, will have households paying 5500 rent for this little house, he is entitled to his opinion.
WG and whoever, great opp for you then, can one of you pick this up and help out the prop 13 heir? Hey you may bid 950k to fit your budget.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:46 am
While I’m not a big Eichler fan at all, if you’re gonna have an Eichler, it’s important to keep it looking like an Eichler. Growing up in Foster City and San Mateo, I’ve seen plenty of nicely kept Eichlers….as well as plenty of what I’d call “Eeccccchhhlers”.
This is definitely in the latter category.
As for the neighborhood, it’s a bit windy at times being up in the high hills and all, but still quite nice. Especially if you’re a bicylist as there is tons of good riding right in the area (overpass to Skyline Blvd/Sawyer Camp Trail; Bunker Hill terminating on Pohlhemus Road which is wide, open and leads to the Ralston Trail onto Canada Road, just to name a couple of examples). There is at least one famous Eichler in the area; not sure exactly WHAT street it is – the X-100 model home from 1955. Here’s a link to an article: http://www.eichlernetwork.com/ENStry12.html
September 12th, 2008 at 9:48 am
I hit [Enter] too quickly.
bob this is not due to renters being poorer, disheveled or dirty. It’s simply due to the fact that owners have a greater incentive to care for the property and the neighborhood. After all a renter does not need to sell when he moves on.
Does it make more sense to you now? Can you look beyond your navel?
To both RE and DreamT. You’re seriously acting like snobs. Renters and homeowners differ widely. My parents rent a house to a couple who have lived there for 10 years. The renters have re-done the kitchen, keep up the lawn, have re-painted the entire interior, and even built a swing set for their kids in the back yard. My parents have never raised their rent. The house was paid off a long time ago. They come over and take their kids swimming in their pool all the time. They also came to my wedding.
On the other hand, The neighbors have what appears to be 10 crappy old cars rotting into the ground. They own their home. There’s a guy who owns a old single wide trailer across the street. Its the neatest looking property, complete with little gardens, etc etc. He owns too.
I rent, yet I mow the lawn, clean the windows, have also planted three gardens, painted the porch, and keep the inside neat and clean. I like living there, and take pride in it. I do this because it is good insurance. So far, my rent has never been raised. The three other rental houses on my block also have long-term renters. Like us, they too take good care of their houses.
Then again, I have a friend who lives like a pig in his rented apartment. He’s a messy person. My Wife’s best friend is dating a guy who owns a house in the Oakland Hills. Nice house. Absolutely nasty inside. Looks like he never-ever cleans the kitchen.
So no- I don’t buy that somehow, renters are “inferior” Get off your high horses. Your attitudes suck, no matter how “clean” you might be on the outside.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:30 am
bob – I wrote was “most homeowners prefer fellow homeowners rather than renters as neighbors”
You distill this, first with “despise”, then with “inferior”, then by claiming I was merely my personal opinion rather than stating what most homeowner’s preference is.
You know what you’re doing, right? Slandering – maliciously altering people’s words. I have not ever seen you post an opinion on this board without doing so. That’s your opinion of how a honest debate is conducted?
September 12th, 2008 at 10:50 am
AmusedLurker,
In all coincidence, which you don’t have to believe, that house was advertised on Craigslist for rent in San Mateo just up to yesterday. It is gone now, it was advertised at $3600 or $3800/month, and had a large deposit of $5500. I thought it was very much into the whole contemporary style, perhaps a bit too much for some people, the photos make it look nice. I spent close to 1 hr on streetview trying to locate the house, I failed at that task. I’m very serious too, it said available 10/1/2008.
I seriously wish you could at least see the ad, at least to see the pictures.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Bob,
Not sure what you were addressing me. I love all my neighbors.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Bob,
Homeowners prefering other homeowners is not necessarily because they’re inferior. It is because they, in the aggregate do not put the same amount of effort into home upkeep.
I’ll tell you man, you’re the exception to the rule. I consider myself a damn fine renter. I’m clean, don’t make noise, always pay my rent on time and take care of the home when something needs to be done.
However I would never. Ever. EVER. spend my personal time fixing up my landlord’s home. I would never wash the windows, mow (water?) the grass, or in any way improve the home at my own cost without sending my lanlord a bill.
Why? Because my friend, this is the glory of renting. The home is not mine, I am not “Building equity,” and I do not have my own lawn to water. Since my landlord has those things, they have responsibilities associated with benefit they derive.
I once deducted $3.75 from my rent of >$2,000 because I had to purchase a tube of caulk to fix a leak. I thought about deducting the time and gas, but decided I would do it next time. Plus I figured it was offset by the amount of caulk I was able to keep
Bob, by doing those things, you are shortchanging yourself on the benefits of renting. You may enjoy doing it, which is fine but understand: you are the exception not the rule. Most renters couldn’t care less about about the home beyond their security deposit.
I know, when it comes down to it, I don’t.
One last thing: Since you’re renting in alameda and commuting so much, why don’t you rent somewhere else? One of the reasons I have avoided buying is that I have an aversion to driving. In fact, I try to live no further than 5 miles from where I work. Seems to me you’re sort of tied to a home as if you own it, yet you still commute a huge amount. Is this correct?
September 12th, 2008 at 11:56 am
RE Says: “Not sure what you were addressing me. I love all my neighbors.”
Yep, it’s sunchine, lollipops and rainbows 24/7 in Palo Alto! ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2sKH8yjVsM )
“Just to know that you are mine…love is here to staaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay”
September 12th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Love thy neighbor — Heard it from church.
September 12th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
>>Yep, it’s sunchine, lollipops and rainbows 24/7 in Palo Alto!
I’m actually working wirelessly from my yard right now. Couldn’t ask for a better day.
September 12th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
No sir, this ain’t texas!
sweet breeze in the sumemr time, I’m feelin’ alright.
September 12th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
As I write this, the hillside between 280 and Lexington Dr in this area is on fire..
September 12th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Not sure what you were addressing me. I love all my neighbors.
——
The real question is whether all the neighbors love a racist neighbor.
September 12th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
“As I write this, the hillside between 280 and Lexington Dr in this area is on fire..”
This could be best possible thing to happen to this kool aid drinker.
September 12th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Well Anon,
Yup, I totally agree. I’m abnormal for being a renter. But I actually enjoy doing things like mowing the lawn, watering the plants, painting, and so on. We rent an old Victorian house. It has a pretty nice yard. I also grew up on a 17 acre piece of property. I spent almost all of my childhood being outside because for one, there was a creek in the back yard and secondly, cable TV didn’t come out as far as we lived and we only picked up one TV station. When I first moved here, I lived in apartments. I had no yard, and in fact, the house I rented before this one was paved over like a lot of the yards we see on this site.
It drove me nuts living like that. So that’s why I wanted to rent a old home with a yard… the whole nine yards. Rent was dirt-cheap 5 years ago. We had a pick of over 10 old houses, most of which were cheaper than what we rent now. But we chose this one because it was nicest.
So yes, we take care of it. But it costs us nothing to do so. The mower was free.So is all the paint, scrapers, caulking, and so forth. All I pay is with my labor, which as I mentioned, I enjoy doing. So its a beneficial relationship with me and the landlord, who lives in the house next door. I keep care of his house, and he doesn’t raise my rent, which in turn means I save more money. I don’t mind at all.
The way we looked at it was that we figured this would be the last house we rented in California, whether that be we decided to stay and buy or leave and buy elsewhere. By the time we leave, we will have been in the same house for over 8 years. Longer than most people who “own” here stay in theirs in this area. While those who bought might possibly have some equity from their homes, we’ll have cash and investments to buy as well.
At the end of the day, I seriously look at it from a very simple perspective: Home is where you sleep, keep your stuff, and live your life in a comfortable manner. About 95% of the reason people feel that they must buy is due to pure Physcological impulse. But the reality is that I live in a house, and you live in a house. You get money from equity, I get money from saving. You have to pay the bank every month, and I have to pay the landlord every month. If you lose your job and can’t afford your mortgage, then you will have to sell and sell it for at least what you paid. If I lose my job, I will have to move and rent something cheaper. We have the same roof over our heads. How we extract money from those choices is the only difference because as I’ve mentioned, I’m coming out just as well financially from my choice, and perhaps better, than many people who have bought.
September 12th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Austin Dweller,
Have you evacuated yet?
September 12th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Austin is too far north.
September 12th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Besides, Texans are standing in solidarity against the hurricane. They understand that a front unified of texans is greater than the forces of nature.
Reserve any BBQ spots for the purpose of watching foreigners play soccer this weekend?
September 12th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Guys,
This is off topic, but someone please explain to me what the heck is McCain doing by picking Sarah Palin?
Is he hoping to find an excuse for losing the upcoming election?
For Christ sake, imagine a 44 year old woman (about the same as Madhaus) from Alaska being a heart beat away from the Presidency, where there is real chance the President can die. This lady has like 5 kids, which means majority of her adult life, she was beging pregnant and doing baby stuff. One of her kids is already having a baby at age 17.
Watch for her TV interview. She was visbility nervous and said the same sentence 3 times at one point. She already said some dubious things like she would not rule out war with Russia.
September 12th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Definitely off-topic. About as relevant as the going-ons in your yard.
But signature RealEstater – I counted four trolls (excuse for losing election, age, children and war on russia) which is not a mean feat. Anybody care to bite?
September 12th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
The real issue – which candidate will do the most for housing in the Bay Area?
September 12th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
A good start would be to grant local elections right (city council, school board, etc.) to residents rather than just citizens (as is the case in many European countries). The proportion of people who want more affordable housing versus not would rise substantially and this would be reflected in local zoning decisions.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Gotta say, while I don’t agree with the reasons, I agree with RE that Palin was a poor choice. McCain should’ve picked Huckabee:
Huckabee for VP
(Just take a peek.)
September 12th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
> which candidate will do the most for housing in the Bay Area?
What do you mean “the most”?
September 12th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
if you’re a homeowner:
“the most” = restore our god-given right to 15% appreciation every year
if you’re a renter:
“the most” = bring housing prices down to an “affordable” level where the median income can purchase the median priced house
September 12th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
> restore our god-given right to 15% appreciation every year
Time for a new amendment to the constitution. And make it 25% for Chuck Norris’ sake.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
“if you’re a homeowner:
“the most” = restore our god-given right to 15% appreciation every year
if you’re a renter:
“the most” = bring housing prices down to an “affordable” level where the median income can purchase the median priced house”
I think the most would be the former, as the latter will happen (to some degree) by its own accord.
“Time for a new amendment to the constitution. And make it 25% for Chuck Norris’ sake.”
Well played.
September 13th, 2008 at 3:14 am
>>I agree with RE that Palin was a poor choice. McCain should’ve picked Huckabee
There was a large # of candidates who competed with McCain in the early rounds that would all make a superior candidate than Palin. The fact that he picked Palin is a reflection of his own poor decision making ability.
September 13th, 2008 at 3:22 am
>>“the most” = bring housing prices down to an “affordable” level where the median income can purchase the median priced house
First of all, it’s the market that determines prices not presidential candidates. Secondly, politicians would only be motivated to improve the economy, which can only be helped by a strong housing market rather than a weak or affordable one. Finally, as we discussed before there is no affodability problem in majority of the country including large parts of the BA. You can buy a house in Sunnyvale for less than $500K today. A median income person has plenty of choices that are within close proximity to jobs.
September 13th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Austin Dweller,
Still no response? Having trouble finding an internet connection at the shelter?
September 13th, 2008 at 10:12 am
that reminds me, what should i do to prepare for a big earthquake.
September 13th, 2008 at 11:32 am
“that reminds me, what should i do to prepare for a big earthquake.”
Move to Texas
September 13th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
RE – regarding #139
I guess I wasn’t being obvious enough to convey the appropriate sarcasm in my post. BOTH points were equally exaggerated.
I’m not sure what economic principles would back your assertion that affordable housing is not good for the economy… Maybe it’s all in the definitions? (Can you define “is?”)
September 15th, 2008 at 12:11 am
I actually drove around the highlands neighborhood on the way home on Saturday, it seems like a nice neighborhood. Noticed that the X-100 is for rent, and it has a realtor’s sign post out in front, and that it said “for lease” instead of for sale. At $3600/month it seem like a good deal for those in that range.
The house featured here didn’t look as bad as the picture from the outside, I guess it is not photogenic, the big truck in front likely doesn’t help. I have to say for someone motivated to sell it they don’t really clean up or fix their pictures in any way. Either way, it seems that the realtor really showed this house in a bad light. Also it doesn’t fit the neighborhood, the rest of the houses are contemporary, and for the most part true to their origins.
BTW. The kitchen really does scream 1989 to me. I always see those cabinets in places built in the late 1980s.
My guess is that a good price to sell it at today would be $850,000, from the price history the sellers do seem to be the kind that will be the victims of “death by a thousand cuts”, they will likely eventually reduce it to $850,000 at which point the market price might have gone down to $800,000 or $750,000. I’m guessing the realtor works on volume, and probably doesn’t really care about this listing, since it has a seemingly small chance of getting an offer right now.
September 23rd, 2008 at 10:41 am
Looks like this one is headed to foreclosure auction- A property on RealtyTrac with the same lot size and square footage is listed as “Foreclosure Auction”: http://preview.tinyurl.com/53nbm9.
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:01 am
Oh look, Chuckie’s about to lose his house too.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
PWNED!!!
And now offered for 799,900. Funny, seems to have lost a bedroom…has the garage been reclaimed?
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Mateo/2181-BUNKER-HILL-Dr-94402/home/1340442
June 19th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
This place sold for $790,500 on Nov 19,2008
And then for $810,000 on February 4th.
My guess is that the first one was a foreclosure, then the second one was the sale. That sounds like a much fairer price. I guess RE will mention about how it sold over the new asking price, saying that shows how well the market is doing.