Probate sale in Cupertino…. just $993 per square foot!
10131 SANTA CLARA Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014 | MLS# 80850774
10131 SANTA CLARA Ave Cupertino, CA 95014
Price: $810,000
Beds: 2
Baths: 1
Sq. Ft.: 816
$/Sq. Ft.: $993
Lot Size: 7,500 Sq. Ft.
Property Type: Detached Single Family
Style: Traditional
Year Built: 1945
Stories: 1
View: Neighborhood
Neighborhood: Cupertino
County: Santa Clara
MLS#: 80850774
Source: MLSListings
Status: Active
On Redfin: 49 days
Fixer-upper
Fixer with a lot of potential! Cupertino * Monta Vista high school * * Kennedy middle * * Stevens Creek elementary * * Lot is over 7,400 sf. This is not a short sale. Probate sale * * Easy process * *
Whenever I need a pick me up, I know where to turn – Cupertino.
Ahhh…. at $993 per square foot, this house exemplifies what is amazing about the Real Bay Area. Let’s take a look at the one interior pic shall we?
Ooh I feel goosebumpy already!
What a beaut! Thank you Cupertino! Thank you for cheering me up!
My god… if only this could clear $1000 per square foot, then we would really be rocking! Woot!
Maybe next year… maybe next year…
March 5th, 2009 at 7:24 am
Now reduced to.. still too f*king expensive. Next!
March 5th, 2009 at 7:41 am
You know, the houses in the RBA are mighty small. How come there arn’t mre tear doans and McMansions?
March 5th, 2009 at 8:47 am
Price cut to $699,950 – $857/sf. Still $300/sf too high in my estimation; it would be more but the schools are what makes parents drool.
March 5th, 2009 at 8:58 am
It’s in Cupertino yet the address is Santa Clara Ave. You’re not going to get any respect with that 😉
March 5th, 2009 at 9:02 am
It’s close to the house featured on Feb 19 ($522,500). At least today’s house has a decent lot (7,500 sq ft vs. only 3,300).
March 5th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Lots of potential. 816sqft to be exact.
Reduced to 699,950. Note the greed indicator.
Suddenly people don’t want to buy any house they can! I guess that’s what happens when they are faced with the idea that they may actually need to buy the house with their money rather than the bank’s.
March 5th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Can anyone get their heads around the new statistic that ONE OUT OF EIGHT mortgage-holders are behind in their payments?
WTF?
I wonder how many mortgage-holders bought in the last six years or so.
March 5th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Hey, don’t slam this house. This could be a great investment opportunity. Throw a young couple in there, let them have 8 kids, send the 8 kids to * Monta Vista high school * * Kennedy middle * * Stevens Creek elementary *, the kids will all be super smart because they’re attending Cupertino schools, they’ll get scholarships to the best universities, they’ll get great paying jobs working a Google, Cisco, etc. and take care of the now old young couple and help pay off the house.
Sounds like a great investment to me. Shoot, with 8 high incomes coming in they may all be able to upgrade to Palo Alto one day… Then the whole process can start over again.
March 5th, 2009 at 10:52 am
“Sounds like a great investment to me. Shoot, with 8 high incomes coming in they may all be able to upgrade to Palo Alto one day… Then the whole process can start over again.”
And, joe, AND !YOU’RE FORGETTING THE MOST IMPORTANT CONSEQUENT! which is:
8 more high income people competing for PA property, thus ensuring perpetual PA appreciation.
March 5th, 2009 at 11:32 am
#7 I wonder how many mortgage-holders bought in the last six years or so.
From Denninger: “The median “holding time” for a home loan is around 7 years, so this means that about half of the mortgages written were done before the boom occurred…So this means that approximately one in five mortgages written in the last seven years are either not being paid or in foreclosure.”
March 5th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Oh this house, this house… Did you say Kennedy and Monta Vista? Where do I sign? I’ll just park a couple of Winnebagos in the spacious front yard. 7500 square feet? Now that’s living!
Hey wait a minute. Herve is right. Nobody will respect my address at all. Isn’t there anything for sale on 94301 Court?
March 5th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Basically this is setup for a teardown and rebuild for a nice $2mm 3.5ksqft McMansion…Apple or Symantec exec
March 5th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
What’s the deal with the living room to kitchen transition on the floor? It looks like the living room has a wood-effect wall to wall throw rug placed down, with some of the edge popping up.
March 5th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
What about the teardown comment? Building a nice house costs what, 100-150/sf.
Suppose that lot is worth 400k. Then you put a 3000sf house that costs 450k to build. Then you are at 850k
March 5th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
>> Building a nice house costs what, 100-150/sf.
Try $200-300/sq. ft., which is another kind of insanity which needs a 50% correction.
March 5th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
jj, many here have argued that RBA construction is 300/sf.
I think 100-150 is reasonable.
March 5th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
when I was looking at land, I was planning on $500 sq ft for constuction costs. (granted, my tastes are a bit specialized.)
I think RE’s range is more accurate, assuming you are building a mcmansion and not something higher end. prices should drop further as contractors feel the housing start and remodel stall squeeze.
March 5th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
I read on another website about someone doing a large remodeling/ addition project for their place in Marin county, they claimed that they saved about $100k in costs by sending out the contract as far as the Sacramento area for bids.
I think it does cost more to build in San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties if you’re building just one house. What I have heard is about $300/sqft. The truth is that this is about 2.5-3 times the cost of fairly new construction in the Central Valley and Eastern Contra Costa, land included, so I am not sure what increases the cost of the construction itself when it comes to areas around here. Granted the central valley areas may be selling below replacement costs. But they do build 2500sqft houses there, and never sold them for $750k, even at the top of the bubble.
March 5th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Stock market update:
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/03/stock-market-cliff-diving.html
The ‘4 bad bears’ chart is worth having bookmarked.
The $1 menu joke is worth repeating.
And in case you were wondering, though I was tempted when the DOW hit $7500, I didn’t buy then, and I still haven’t. I had a few ‘magic numbers’ in my head, including 6500, but I am more torn than ever.
The stock market and the housing market are racing each other to the bottom. I’d like to be lucky enough to hit the bottom in both of them, but market timing is a bitch.
So if I already had a house, I’d put whatever extra I had into stocks (with a 30 year horizon), probably in chunks over the next 12 months, whether it goes up or down or whatever. Dollar cost average it a little bit.
But I can’t afford short term swings on the total of my nest egg, so it can’t sit in equities if I’m thinking of buying a house, which I am.
But will the houses I want get SOOOOO cheap, I’ll have some left over to put in stocks even after I buy? Time will tell…
Here’s the angry renter’s optimal scenario (and dilemma): the medium-sized houses in nice neighborhoods I could never used to afford become well within my price range, and I continue to hold my steady job. I can buy as soon as I find one just right and the spouse loves it. BUT, the big-sized houses in nice neighborhoods I could never even close to afford come into the edge of my price range, too! Should I buy a house ‘just big enough’ for my family’s needs, or should I buy ‘as much house as I can’ that I can afford? And put the rest in an intelligent market-investment strategy.
Opinions welcome.
March 5th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
< Realtard >
Of course you should buy as much house as you can afford! Real estate only goes up! And you should buy now while prices are affordable! Truly this is a once in a lifetime opportunity! Don’t try to time the market! Buy now! Prices double every ten years! Don’t throw your money away on rent! Sink your life savings into a house, NOW NOW NOW!
< /Realtard >
Is that helpful?
March 5th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Dang it! The little pointy brackets displayed properly in preview! Burbed, you gotta fix that thing.
March 5th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Be patient, A. Lewis. The downturn in the nice areas has only begun recently. I have a friend who made the mistake of buying the house next door to his before he had sold his own just as the market was trending downward in the 90’s. By the time he sold his house, he’d lost over 400K; this was in a matter of months. It’s going to be unemployment in tech and the absolute devastation of some big companies like Google that will lay waste to housing prices.
PS – Even though we will likely have a nice snapback in equities soon, I think the target for the DOW is in the 5’s, maybe lower.
March 5th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
A. Lewis, I recommend purchasing a house you and your family can be content in.
This dilemma you have reminds me of a story I read in an Eastern Philosophy class I had in college. The story and background can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stonecutter
“Once upon a time a stonecutter was working near the side of a mighty rock. As he stood to pause from his hard labour for a minute, he observed a local landlord and his party pass underneath the shade of the trees nearby.
When the stonecutter saw this rich man in all his comfort, his work suddenly felt heavier and harder to him. “Oh, if only I were a rich man,” he sighed, “how happy I should be!” Suddenly a voice answered from the mountain: “Your wish is heard; a rich man you shall be!”
When the stonecutter returned home that evening, he found a magnificent palace where his hut once stood. The poor man was nearly beside himself with joy, and in his new life the old one was soon forgotten. One day, while he was walking around the marketplace, he felt the sun burn sharply on his face, and as he saw a prince, sitting in the cool shade of his carriage, he wished he was a prince. A prince he became, but still the sun scorched his face. The stonecutter then wished he would become the sun itself, and immediately it was granted.
As the sun, he felt mightier than all. His light stretched around the entire world and his rays shone on kings and fishers alike. But as he burned bright in the sky, a cloud moved in front of him and obscured his sight. “What is this!” he wondered, “a cloud is mightier than me! Oh how I wish I was a cloud.”
And a cloud he was, and he lay between the sun and the earth. He caught the sun’s beams and held them, and for days and week he poured forth rain till the rivers overflowed their banks, and the crops of rice stood in water. Towns and villages were destroyed by the power of the rain, only the great rock on the mountainside remained unmoved. “What is this!” he cried, “a rock is mightier than me! Oh how I wish I was a rock.”
And the rock he was, and gloried in his power. Proudly he stood, and neither the heat of the sun nor the force of the rain could move him. “This is better than all!” he said to himself. But one day he heard a strange noise at his feet, and when he looked down to see what it could be, he saw a stonecutter driving tools into his surface. Even while he looked a trembling feeling ran all through him, and a great block broke off and fell upon the ground. Then he cried in his wrath: “Is a mere child of earth mightier than a rock? Oh, if I were only a man!”
And the mountain spirit answered: “Your wish is heard. A man once more you shall be!” And the poor man was content to remain a stonecutter for the rest of his life.”
Always longing for more will lead to unhappiness.
March 5th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Once upon a Spring Bounce icky , while I pondered prices sticky,
Over many a quaint and cozy listing of forgotten town,
While I nodded, nearly sleeping, suddenly there came a creeping,
As of some one roughly reaping, reaping at my crapbox brown.
‘Tis some Realtard,’ then I mumbled, reaping at my crapbox brown.
Only one with no renown.
Ah, distinctly I remember it was in the peak December,
And each separate dying ember of equity made me frown
Edgily I wished the morrow; – in vain had I sought to borrow
From my counting books of sorrow, sorrow for assets unsound
For the large and gen’rous equity reaching zenith now unsound
Valueless here forever drown’d.
Then this blood-red bird proposing my castle keep foreclosing,
By the grave and grim expression of its visage in a frown,
‘Though thy feathers seem quite mangy,’ I said, ‘thou art most rangy.
Horrid harmful ancient macaw wandering in from deepest downtown —
Tell me my awful fate revealed on the site’s Realty round!
Said the macaw: “You’re upside down.”
March 5th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
I’ll put on the realtard hat madhaus has cast aside:
Lewis, buy the most house you can afford. Maximize your leverage for the greatest return on your investment!
Of course, when I take the hat off, I have to admit leverage works both ways… 😉 What I’d do in your shoes is decide how much you’d be comfortable spending on a house. Put aside the appropriate down payment; stick it in a CD or money market account. Invest the rest in a way that fits your risk tolerance. boring, eh?
The main thing is to let the math (personal finance) drive what kind of house you get and not let your desires undermine logical thought. Decide before you begin looking at houses and then you won’t be disappointed when you see what “just another $100k” can get you. You’re a logical person so I doubt you haven’t already figured this out.
March 5th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
#24 – awesome, madhaus!
March 5th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
wow what a dump
March 5th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
A. Lewis, do like me and get the hell outta’ here. It isn’t worth it and your family will thank you for it later.
March 6th, 2009 at 4:09 am
A. Lewis,
I don’t know about your personal situation, so I can only offer you some general advice:
1. Buy a house you can grow into. If you don’t have kids now but plan on having kids, what fits you today may not fit you later.
2. Investin stocks with your 401K. Always max out your 401K, then consider how much house you can afford. Don’t even think about investing outside of your 401K until you have a house.
3. Buy a house such that the monthly payment is puts you in somewhat of a strain, but within reason. 10 years down the road, what you look at as a large payment now is going to seem miniscue compare to the cost of living in the future. By then, you’ll feel that you don’t have enough tax shelter.
4. Going into home ownership, make sure you have at least a year of living expenses saved up in case you lose your job.
5. Bigger is better. At minimum, buy a 3 bedroom, not only for utility reasons, but it’d be easier to sell later on. Also, as a defensive measure, you have the flexibility to rent out a room if money becomes a problem.
March 6th, 2009 at 8:39 am
#19 – A., did you notice the graph link in the second comment? Funny:
http://dafox.org/SP500March52009.png
March 6th, 2009 at 9:44 am
#29, good post. I agree with everything you say. I would also add a number six –
6. Don’t buy a house that costs 10% more to buy than it does to rent or is more than 10% above its historical price.
March 6th, 2009 at 9:55 am
What does “10% above its historical price” mean?
March 6th, 2009 at 10:07 am
R, I agree that RE #29 contains some good advice. There are some details I would argue:
Don’t even think about investing outside of your 401K until you have a house.
for example sticks out, as does:
10 years down the road, what you look at as a large payment now is going to seem miniscue compare to the cost of living in the future
But, the basics are sound, especially:
Buy a house you can grow into. and
make sure you have at least a year of living expenses saved up in case you lose your job.
March 6th, 2009 at 11:18 am
#32, it means that if you look at a chart of home prices in that specific area, it is not above the historical trend line (basically inflation rate) by more than 10%. In other words, if there is much room on the housing price chart between the current price level and the trend line for the area(it is still an enormous bubble shape around here), prices are too high and need to come down until they are back to “normal”
See following chart for example:
http://www.housingbubblebust.com/OFHEO/Major/NorCal.html
March 6th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Thanks to all for advice, much appreciated. I think this is one of our better threads…
The Mortgage Pig/S&P 500 correlation is funny and terrifying. How did Tanta know?!
Just to be clear on the dilemma, if I had income of X, and had saved 12 months worth, and was already maxing my 401k, then I think we’re all in agreement I can probably afford to buy a house that costs 3X or 4X.
So the super-rosy scenario is that a house that meets what I think are my family’s basic needs (say 3BR/1500 sqft) now costs like 2.5X. But houses that are significantly bigger (say 4BR/2200 sqft) now cost 3.8X. Both are ‘affordable’ to me with X. Roll with me even if the ratios aren’t exact for those size houses.
I could effectively live ‘below my means’ by buying a 2.5X house, right? Do or do not, there is no try…
In general I’m sympathetic to the buy as much as you can afford rule of thumb, as well as the “decide what you can afford and don’t keep looking at +100k”, but I wanted to just hear some thoughts in The New Paradigm of 2009 and you guys have given me a lot.
Keep in mind, I am waiting until those houses come down to 2001 pricing or so, and only then am I shopping them.
March 6th, 2009 at 11:53 am
I beleive the “The New Paradigm of 2009” is wait until 2010. That said, look at as many houses as you can to understand your tastes and the market (and the many sub-markets). Track prices, and if you see an extraordinary opportunity, think about taking it.
March 6th, 2009 at 11:54 am
btw, DJI is now below 6500.
March 6th, 2009 at 11:56 am
A. Lewis,
>>So the super-rosy scenario is that a house that meets what I think are my family’s basic needs (say 3BR/1500 sqft) now costs like 2.5X. But houses that are significantly bigger (say 4BR/2200 sqft) now cost 3.8X. Both are ‘affordable’ to me with X.
Buy the larger house. There’s likely more room for negotiation, so you can get better value. If time gets tough, you have room(s) to rent. If the house is bigger, having a renter would be less intrusive on your life.
March 6th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
A. Lewis: Actually agreeing with RE here. Most of the cost of RBA houses is in the land, as it surely isn’t in the house. So, the quality of house you get goes up really fast once you start to buy more of it. 4BR/2200 sqft is not only bigger, but I’ll bet it’s much nicer than 3BR/1500 sqft.
Those entry level $1M PA really are the worst value crapshacks on the peninsula.
March 8th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
>>Those entry level $1M PA really are the worst value crapshacks on the peninsula.
Don’t forget, you’re getting the intangibles: prestige, name, demographics, upside potential.
March 8th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Prestige and respect. The kind which you receive on this blog.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Check out all the treasured books at the bottom of this page.
The book Bob just read will one day be added to this pile.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Bored? Looking for attention? Trophy wife won’t give you the time of day?
Smear fecal matter on the internet.
March 9th, 2009 at 7:47 am
(sing it!) One of these books is not like the other…
Bob’s book doesn’t fit in either, so if you were trying to make a point you failed miserably, yet again, RE.
And by the way, many of them look like they’d be favorites of yours – after all, they extol the virtues of homeownership and real estate investing.
October 4th, 2009 at 11:33 am
This house is sold for 750K. I dont understand why almost all the listings show only the price per square feet, while the price/appreciation depends only on the size of land. I dont know about other places, but in SF bay area/Silicon valley, the land is more expensive and considered an investment. I would say, this house( actually the land) was listed for $108/sqft and sold for $100/sqft. Most probably an investment purchase, with the intention to spend another 250-350K on building a new house, and probably expecting to sell if with minimum 20% profit considering houses+land in cupertino are selling for ~$200/sqft even now.
So, why do you think it is not a good deal for both buyer and seller?
October 4th, 2009 at 11:55 am
This house is sold for 750K.
—-
Don’t tell me that this great investment property was not sold “over asking” in our favorite city of “Overbidding Everywhere”. And that is also in summer sale.
October 4th, 2009 at 11:57 am
#46, correct link to The City of “Overbidding Everywhere“.