Ski jump on the roof – interesting San Jose styling
6603 Mcabee Rd, San Jose, CA 95120 Almaden Valley MLS# 80919544 – Property Details
6603 Mcabee Rd, San Jose, CA 95120(Almaden Valley)
$1,649,000
Status: Active
Bedroom: 4
Bathroom: 3&1/2* Year Built: 2007
* Lot Size: 8712
* Square Footage: 3601
* List Date: 4/21/2009
* Garage Spaces: 2
* MLS#: 80919544Beautiful home located in Almaden Valley. This home is 2 years new with magnificent upgrades including downstairs hardwood floors, marble master bath, granite slab in gourmet kitchen. Extra premium lot with courtyard. Great location with convenient access to shopping, restaurants, freeways, excellent schools and Quicksilver Park. Almaden Schools: Simonds, Castillero, Pioneer
Thanks to Burbed reader Sonarrat for this find. Here’s what he had to say:
I don’t know what I like more, the drooling tongue hanging out from the front door or the ski jump on the roof.
Wow… that’s pretty creative imagery. Were you a creative writing major or something? At $457 per square foot this is quite the steal. And look, it comes with a courtyard!
Would you go for this piece of art? I bet you could take some fancy photos, submit them to the SF MOMA, give it a fancy title that only makes sense to 4 people, and win a giant prize, instantly earning this house for free!
I nominate sonarrat to buy this house and pull it off!
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:45 am
Actually only works out to be about $500 per square foot. Still ridiculous but no where near as bad as some of the other properties listed.
Incidentally, that brings up an interesting question: are there any long term stats that anyone is aware of that shows how the price per square foot of homes has trended over the years? I’d be interested in seeing that chart.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:50 am
I’m sure I’ve seen something like that, BAI, but I have no idea where. I’d suggest taking a look at Altos Research and see if they have anything. The by-city charts are free, if you want it by zip or something, then you have to pay.
I hadn’t noticed the Pluto-style tongue until sonarrat called attention to it. So you can ski down the room, and when you break your leg, the tongue will heal you. Or something.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:51 am
Price per sq ft has been trending down almost everywhere. Take a look at redfin’s view on any listing and scroll down to the bottom and they have prices based on years including $/sft broken out. You can then see the house in question’s valuation based purely on sq footage.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:33 am
Two years old, and the owners could never afford to put a freakin’ lawn in the backyard???
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:35 am
Ouch! I guess there’s no lawn because they paid $1,725,000 for this place.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:04 am
BuyersAreIdiots: Here is a way to get price per sq ft (square foot) at the zip code level since 1988.
Go to propertyshark.com (You need to register). Find a home in the zip code you want and enter it on the main page. On the bottom of the results page you will see the price per sq ft in that zip code.
If you do the comparison between two zip codes in San Mateo, the desirable zip code 94402 in the hills and the less desirable 94401 next to 101, you will see an interesting pattern. During two periods, 1990 and 2005-2006, the less desirable zip code was actually selling for more per sq ft that the more desirable zip code. Those years coincided with the peaks of two housing bubbles. I would guess it is an example of “buy now or you will be priced out forever” panic.
Over the last 20 years the prices have tracked each other very closely. Currently however prices have fallen significantly in 94401 but are holding up (for now) in 94402. Based on the 20 years of data it is highly likely that the more expensive region will fall to match prices in the lower priced area.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:18 am
Just can’t stop picking at today’s house. Check out the lucky neighbors:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Jose/6652-Broadacres-Dr-95120/home/927397
Listed for $1.5M, they bought 6 months before today’s feature house. Looks to be the same house (in mirror image) but somehow chopped up to include one more bedroom and a full bath instead of the half-bath. I call them lucky because they paid $1,528,000 and have a narrower loss on their hands. Not to mention a much higher chance of a successful sale at $150k less.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:19 am
The ski slope refers to the roof? That’s a common design element back where I’m from the the late 30′s and throughout the 40′s — a sort of fairy tale cottage look. Of course those homes are no where near that square footage — most homes were far smaller then.
But the rest of the house? Who puts a chandelier in the bedroom? Designer idiocy.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:34 am
This house in no way resembles a ’30s bungalow. It’s McMansion tacky through and through. The bay window in front isn’t fooling anyone.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:44 am
If you do the comparison between two zip codes in San Mateo, the desirable zip code 94402 in the hills and the less desirable 94401 next to 101, you will see an interesting pattern. During two periods, 1990 and 2005-2006, the less desirable zip code was actually selling for more per sq ft that the more desirable zip code. Those years coincided with the peaks of two housing bubbles. I would guess it is an example of “buy now or you will be priced out forever” panic.
Fascinating. That might be a good algo to detect bubbles!
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:49 am
Obviously the photos didn’t pick up the little “1995, 1996, 1997 ….. 2005 (at the peak) then 2006, 2007, etc under that roofline, it’s a commemoration of the RE bubble, it’s that same elegant up then DOWN curve.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:56 am
aw, isn’t that harsh sonarrat? At first glance I thought the house would be in Willow Glen. Hmm, but I guess that doesn’t make it any more authentic, does it?
-
On another note, here’s a humorous article that can tell us how to truly detect when the economy is getting better:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/how-your-undies-track-the-recession.aspx
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:08 pm
My mom owns an older house on this street (her mortage is less than my property tax)…(her property tax is less than my house cleaners).
It’s a shame that they’ve built McMansion sh*t shacks in this neighborhood, because the older Almaden homes and the Pierce Ranch development that followed are very nice houses.
This tract appears to be built on the final empty patch of land in the Pierce Ranch neighborhood which was owned by the more “rural” side of the family, evidently until the final days. As far as I know, the movers and shakers in the famiy built a semi-gated court for themselves at the top of the a hill in the development off Bay Ridge Ct.
Its a great area, but 1.7 mil is a smoking crack price, as BAI would say.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:53 pm
A $1.6M home and look at the backyard. Not a single tree or shade. Overgrown grass. I guess that’s called joy of homeownership – joy of not maintaining anything. Wait a minute. The current owner bought it in Sep 2007 for $1725K. That means it is actually burden of homeownership.
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
>>A $1.6M home and look at the backyard. Not a single tree or shade.
The house was built in 2007. How many new houses have you seen that come with tree?
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:05 pm
The owner must be so depressed that he/she couldn’t plant a single tree, even if it is matchstick size similar the neighbors.
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:06 pm
similar to neighbors.
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:10 pm
And don’t forget to checkout lucky neighbor (with plants and trees in backyard) posted in #7. That’s 2007 construction too.
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:21 pm
On another note, here’s a humorous article that can tell us how to truly detect when the economy is getting better:
—–
Men’s underwear…hmmm. I guess that’s why Greenspan noticed “seed of bottom”.
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Looks like even God needs a miracle to sell his home.
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:32 pm
The Greenspan link Pralay has in #19 is funny. Looks like he’s giving the NAR a taste of their own medicine by telling them what they want to hear in spite of the realities out there (e.g., rising foreclosures).
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Geithner is getting $7500/mo rent for his $1.6M property? Not too bad considering a house that price would be lucky to get $5k/mo in the bay area.
Still, he’ll have an easier time than the auto execs in Michigan:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/02/real_estate/plant_closing_hurt_home_sales/index.htm
They are attracting international buyers and even ones from CA though:
“We have Canadians and Australians coming here to buy properties,” Curran said. “Californians are buying five, six, seven houses at a time.”
Many bank-repossessed properties are selling in big bundles of 100 or more, with each house in the lot going for less than $10,000. Other homes, especially in well-kept communities, are selling in the $40,000 to $50,000 range, according to Curran.
Just imagine that. 100 houses for $1M. Boggles my mind; it’s not that bad to live there.
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Geithner is getting $7500/mo rent for his $1.6M property? Not too bad considering a house that price would be lucky to get $5k/mo in the bay area.
——
Hey, didn’t someone here said that high demand areas like NY does not follow historical trend of rent vs buy?
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
New useless info regarding home equity lines of credit: did you know that some states charge a tax on the amount of a credit line, whether it’s used or not? Amazing our tax-happy state doesn’t do it. Hopefully it’s only charged once, when the credit line is opened. Maybe it’s a tiny part of why some states didn’t have such a big bubble run-up?
From ING’s site:
…some state governments do charge a mandatory tax on the full amount of any Home Equity mortgage. This tax is assessed regardless of what bank you work with. These states are AL, GA, FL, KS, MD, MN, NY, OK, TN, and VA. We can pay this tax for you with part of your line of credit. Just let us know at closing and we will debit your loan for the taxes and pay the state/county directly. These taxes are based on your home equity’s credit limit and can range from $0.10 to $2.00 per $100.00 of the credit limit that is established for you.
Sheesh – that’s up to $2000 for a $100k equity line!
June 3rd, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Oh stop being such a Gloomy Gus, nomadic! Here are the friendly bankers and mortgage brokers doind everything they can to “help,” and you’re whining about taxes and burdens and debt, oh my!
June 3rd, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Good point, madhaus. I think I’ll celebrate by maxing out a new credit line and taking an around-the-world cruise. Or maybe buying 100 houses in Michigan.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Damn, I’m a little short for buying San Quentin. You guys want to go in on it with me?
San Quentin Tops List Of State Landmarks To Put Up For Sale
http://www.ktvu.com/sports/19650412/detail.html
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:31 pm
> Damn, I’m a little short for buying San Quentin.
Let’s see how all these “estimated values” fare…
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Damn, I’m a little short for buying San Quentin. You guys want to go in on it with me?
Only if I can have the electric chair.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Sparky? Yeah, I suppose…
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:44 pm
steve, another house for you.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:57 pm
260 AK MOUNTAIN CT
That’s how I read it. I wondered if it was short for Alaska Mountain.
Come on, of course I’m confused. Lower case herve writing to lower case steve? What will happen if Alex, RealAlex and UnrealAlex all post after them?
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:22 pm
“The house was built in 2007. How many new houses have you seen that come with tree?”
Oh a tree!
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:29 pm
What’s that you say?! A tree!
June 4th, 2009 at 1:52 am
FREEDOM!!!!
(in memory of the Tiananmen Square Massacre)
June 4th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Re: Gavin #6 and bubble algos:
Looks like (the more desirable) 94402 and (less desirable) 94401 were pretty much equivalent $/sqft during the ’93-’98 lull, and that 94401 surged to 10-20% /sqft more during the ’89 and ’07 bubbles.
Surprisingly, 94401 now costs 20% less than 94402. This kind of divergence is without precedent in the existing data set, and implies that either 94401 is currently undervalued, or 94402 is overvalued. I would guess that 94402 is overvalued, as it has only declined 6% from the peak, whereas 94401 has declined 30%.
94401 is now priced 2% less than 1988-inflation-adjusted pricing. 94402 is 37% higher. 94403 is 7% higher. (assumes 4% annual inflation, a little high, but in line with average wage growth for this period). 2009 data, however, is unreliable as the number of sales are quite low for each zip code (only 7 in 94403).
data from PropertyShark:
Year 94401 94402 94403
1988 $228.00 $197.00 $173.00
1989 $258.00 $226.00 $208.00
1990 $254.00 $228.00 $224.00
1991 $230.00 $237.00 $200.00
1992 $235.00 $210.00 $204.00
1993 $225.00 $217.00 $189.00
1994 $225.00 $221.00 $206.00
1995 $221.00 $222.00 $210.00
1996 $232.00 $229.00 $205.00
1997 $267.00 $268.00 $230.00
1998 $285.00 $285.00 $253.00
1999 $361.00 $305.00 $307.00
2000 $425.00 $396.00 $378.00
2001 $455.00 $439.00 $389.00
2002 $480.00 $434.00 $397.00
2003 $507.00 $469.00 $441.00
2004 $620.00 $531.00 $516.00
2005 $717.00 $595.00 $578.00
2006 $725.00 $632.00 $592.00
2007 $715.00 $655.00 $625.00
2008 $550.00 $609.00 $542.00
2009 $510.00 $614.00 $422.00
June 4th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
That’s the kind of navel-gazing number-numbing analysis that only a geek could love. Great job. Maybe someone should compare Cupertino with South Sunnyvale.
(I’ll do it if you can tell me how. I looked at the tools available and promptly fell asleep.)
June 4th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
madestater-
Appreciate the geek compliment, a tiger can’t change his stripes!
PropertyShark howto:
First get yourself a PropertyShark account. After you login, click on the “start using PropertyShark” link. At the top of the page it should say “Look up a property in” County X. If County X isn’t Santa Clara, click on the “Santa Clara, CA” link on the left side of the page under the “Other Counties in SF Bay Area” heading.
Enter a street address you know to be in one of the zip codes you are interested in. If you don’t know an address off the top of your head, just go to Redfin and find a property for sale in the region of interest and use it as your reference address. I used “20875 DUNBAR Dr” for Cupertino to find information for zipcode 95104. “1479 NEWFOUNDLAND Dr” looks like a good address for South Sunnyvale, 94087.
Enter one of these addresses in the PropertyShark Search, click “look it up”, and scroll down the page 3/4 of the way to find “Neighborhood Price History”, which details transaction#, median price, price/sqft, etc. since 1988. Copy data into Excel spreadsheet. Repeat with other address. Observe and interpret trends.
Year 95014 94087
1988 172 174
1989 226 210
1990 215 211
1991 205 195
1992 210 199
1993 203 188
1994 205 198
1995 218 200
1996 230 215
1997 260 252
1998 304 282
1999 331 310
2000 460 423
2001 441 403
2002 456 415
2003 447 407
2004 490 462
2005 576 534
2006 599 564
2007 647 600
2008 679 626
2009 666 597
This analysis reveals that South Sunnyvale, 94087 has cost 5-10% less per sqft than Cupertino for the entire duration of 1989-present. I don’t see a clear trend in price differentials here. Perhaps San Mateo is a special case.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Ugh. Didn’t expect the emoticon ^above^.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Revised San Mateo data set- the 94401 data got mucked up in the last version- the following set is correct.
94401 is still 4% above 1988-inflation adjusted psft prices.
Year 94401 94402 94403
1988 $183 $197 $173
1989 $181 $226 $208
1990 $250 $228 $224
1991 $204 $237 $200
1992 $197 $210 $204
1993 $172 $217 $189
1994 $190 $221 $206
1995 $194 $222 $210
1996 $191 $229 $205
1997 $223 $268 $230
1998 $252 $285 $253
1999 $262 $305 $307
2000 $347 $396 $378
2001 $376 $439 $389
2002 $394 $434 $397
2003 $422 $469 $441
2004 $516 $531 $516
2005 $613 $595 $578
2006 $643 $632 $592
2007 $604 $655 $625
2008 $478 $609 $542
2009 $433 $614 $422