Great opportunity to build in Old Palo Alto
144 TENNYSON Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 | MLS# 80952608
144 TENNYSON Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301
$1,450,000
Beds: 4
Baths: 2.5
Sq. Ft.: 2,400
$/Sq. Ft.: $604
Lot Size: 7,500 Sq. Ft.
Property Type: Detached Single Family
Style: Colonial
Stories: 2
Year Built: 1961
Community: Old Palo Alto
County: Santa Clara
MLS#: 80952608
Source: MLSListings
Status: Active This listing is for sale and the sellers are accepting offers.
On Redfin: 9 days
Great opportunity to build in Old Palo Alto! Approved building plans to build 2 single family homes with shared driveway. Each home is approx. 1875 sq ft with 4 bedrooms, 2.5 baths 1 car garage and 1 uncovered car space each. Each home will have a nice size backyard and side yard. Designed by award winning architect Stephen Pogue.
Thanks to Burbed reader Paul for this find.
Everyone’s looking for a great investment these days, and there’s no better one than Palo Alto of course.
So let’s see… if you scoop up this ginormous 7,500 sqft lot, you could build two 1875 sqft homes! At $300 per square foot (only the best granite please!), that would be an additional $1,125,000. So that’s a $2,575,000 investment.
But in the end, each of these houses with their shared driveway and nice sized backyard will undoubtedly sell for at least $1000 per square foot – netting you a total of $3,750,000. Hey hey hey! That’s a return of 45% on your investment. CHA CHING!
Let’s take a look at the present street view to see how this will pan out:
Oh yeah. That’s totally going to look like the listing pic when you build two houses there. And I”m sure your neighbors are going to love it!
What are you waiting for? Even Bernie Madoff couldn’t promise an investment return like this. Go for it today!
(BTW, this house was last sold in 2008 for $1,510,000, so there’s an instant equity angle to this as well!)
November 25th, 2009 at 8:16 am
Is the seller going to glass the neighborhood with an A-bomb to reclaim the hill views?
November 25th, 2009 at 8:22 am
I’d totally pay $1,000/sf to live crammed onto a 3,750sf lot. Anything to get into 94301, right?
November 25th, 2009 at 8:27 am
ahhh, now I get it:
Property Information
* Agent has Financial Interest
* Seller is Licensed Real Estate Agent
* Agent Related to Seller
* Zoning: R3
whoops! The guy paid $161,000 over asking (in February 2008) and now has been trying to sell it for over a year.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Happy Thanksgiving everyone. Let’s all be thankful for ever increasing home prices and huge debt burdens
November 25th, 2009 at 11:43 am
i love real estate agents!
btw, prestige numbers were just released for summer. get ‘em while they are just 2 months old.
http://www.firstrepublic.com/lend/residential/prestigeindex/sanfrancisco.html
bad news for summer ‘07 buyers. your $3.1M house is now only worth $2.5M. however, those neighbors who bought back in ‘85 and pay almost no property tax, there still 5x up.
November 25th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
bad news for summer ‘07 buyers. your $3.1M house is now only worth $2.5M.
—–
Not many people bought their homes in summer 07. Therefore, it is just “icing on the cake”.
Secondly, nowadays we don’t care too much about prestige range anyway. East Palo Alto is the hotcake now (and there is no icing on this hotcake).
November 25th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Sounds like lots of sour grapes. The fact is nobody who can afford Palo Alto will bother to diss it. I will say it’s a wonder place, and I wouldn’t mind living there.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Yes, lots of “sour grapes” here.
1. Sour malbec.
2. Sour chardonnay
3. Sour scheurebe
4. Sour muscat
5. Sour riesling
Only one person here can produce such a different varieties of “sour grapes”.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Good point, San Jose Craig. Welcome to Palo Alto! I haven’t been here for a while, and the first thing I see is Pralay up to his old game again. Some old dogs never learn new tricks.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Some old dogs never learn new tricks.
——
And our favorite old dog uses same old phrase “sour grapes” repetitively – even if he is using different name.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Great news everybody. Mortgage rates are at record lows again. Time to refinance and save more money. It’s a great time to be a home owner.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Pralay,
Why don’t you ask Burbed if I have the same IP as San Jose Craig and all the other guys you accuse me of being. If not, I think it would be appropriate for you to issue an apology on Thanksgiving.
November 26th, 2009 at 12:07 am
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is…..
November 26th, 2009 at 12:12 am
Anybody who has written “LOL” must be you then. Great logic.
November 26th, 2009 at 12:14 am
Great news everybody. Mortgage rates are at record lows again.
—–
Great! Hopefully someone will buy this Palo Alto property now.
And hopefully the seller of “great deal” 300 Lowell Ave will be able to sell his home too.
November 26th, 2009 at 12:18 am
Pralay,
Don’t worry about Palo Alto. PA sells itself. I suggest you start with San Jose and buy something when both rates and prices are low. You missed the run-up in stocks, but there’s still chance to buy a house.
November 26th, 2009 at 12:21 am
Anybody who has written “LOL” must be you then. Great logic.
—–
You are correct for some cases – e.g this, this and this,
November 26th, 2009 at 12:26 am
PA sells itself.
——
I agree. Perfectly makes sense to kick out from “great deal” from Palo Alto. We should ship this house to East Alto Alto.
For others, Average Days on Market of Palo Alto. Great sign of “sells itself”.
November 26th, 2009 at 12:29 am
Pralay,
Why do you care about Palo Alto? Do you see me talking about houses in Beverly Hills? It’s not my area and I don’t give a darn if it sells or not.
November 26th, 2009 at 12:30 am
>>You are correct for some cases – e.g this, this and this,
Exactly. I’m really you.
November 26th, 2009 at 12:31 am
I suggest you start with San Jose and buy something when both rates and prices are low.
——
I suggest you buy your “sweet spot” now. Considering the fact it is more than one and half years, it is definitely turning into “sweat spot”.
BTW, writing fictitious offers are not counted as “buying”.
November 26th, 2009 at 12:34 am
It’s not my area and I don’t give a darn if it sells or not.
—-
We do. Especially for those “great deals” or something featured on Burbed.
November 26th, 2009 at 12:36 am
Exactly. I’m really you.
—-
And I am one of these investors (without any investment property).
November 26th, 2009 at 12:39 am
>>And I am one of these investors (without any investment property).
You mean an investor without any property, nor any money?
November 26th, 2009 at 12:40 am
>>BTW, writing fictitious offers are not counted as “buying”.
As I said many times, if I want to be fictitious, I’d simply tell you I bought the house.
November 26th, 2009 at 12:41 am
>>We do. Especially for those “great deals” or something featured on Burbed.
Great deals are in San Jose. You should focus on your league.
November 26th, 2009 at 12:46 am
As I said many times, if I want to be fictitious, I’d simply tell you I bought the house.
——
And I said many times, if Bernard “Honest” Madoff wanted the annual return of his fund to be fictitious, he would simply make it 100% annual return (instead of ONLY 20%).
I guess even fictions have limits.
November 26th, 2009 at 12:47 am
“Sounds like lots of sour grapes. The fact is nobody who can afford Palo Alto will bother to diss it. I will say it’s a wonder place, and I wouldn’t mind living there.”
There are two people who think this way:
1) Those who are new to the RBA, and
2) Those who have never lived in the RBA.
It looks to me as though San Jose Craig is of the latter classification.
November 26th, 2009 at 12:49 am
You mean an investor without any property, nor any money?
—–
The difference between RealEstater and me is that I never claimed that I have property. Where RealEstater claims himself real estate “investor” without having any investment property.
How about changing his name to FakeEstater?
November 26th, 2009 at 12:50 am
anon,
Is there any difference between 1 and 2?
There are two kinds of people who are renting:
1) The people who never bought a home
2) The people who are new to home ownership
November 26th, 2009 at 12:53 am
You should focus on your league.
——
You better focus on your
offerfiction writing skills.November 26th, 2009 at 12:54 am
1) Those who are new to the RBA, and
2) Those who have never lived in the RBA.
It looks to me as though San Jose Craig is of the latter classification.
—–
Another “sour grape”.
November 26th, 2009 at 12:59 am
I’m absolutely a real estate investor. I put my money into real estate, and it yielded a large amount of equity. By definition it’s an investment.
November 26th, 2009 at 1:01 am
That is an incredibly unsophisticated definition of investment. You should try to understand what investing really is, real estater.
November 26th, 2009 at 1:11 am
I’m absolutely a real estate investor.
—–
November 26th, 2009 at 1:24 am
BTW, this is a news about REAL real estate investor. Damn, this guy has 19 investment properties. He could be FakeEstater’s role model.
November 26th, 2009 at 9:42 am
>>That is an incredibly unsophisticated definition of investment.
When you get down to it, it’s the bottom line that counts. As sophisticated as you are, you still don’t have a house.
November 26th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Back in the 70s, .45 ACP ammo was 4 cents per. I bought 50,000. Now they are worth around 50 cents per. That’s over a 10x increase.
Looks like I’m an investor!
BTW, even though you have a house, you still get zero respect. Which would you rather have?
November 26th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
BTW, even though you have a house, you still get zero respect. Which would you rather have?
—-
Actually he does not have house until he pays back the bank. Basically he has neither house nor respect.
Just lots of chest beating with words “I am an investor” – that’s all he has.
November 26th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Real Estate isn’t an investment. Its a liability. That’s basic Econ 101 for you. A fool and his money are soon parted- as many in the Bay Area have already found out from buying real estate.
November 26th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Sounds like lots of sour grapes. The fact is nobody who can afford Palo Alto will bother to diss it. I will say it’s a wonder place, and I wouldn’t mind living there.
I work in Palo Alto and live in the East Bay. I honestly don’t know why people make a big deal about PA. The downtown lacks character. Parking is a nightmare. The resturaunts are just… eh. Its more of a status symbol than anything. A whole much-ado about nothing. I’ve never seen so many phony, fake, plastic people and their Bimmers anywhere else. The atmosphere is not only pretentious, but stuffy.
No thanks. Perhaps others want to live there. Let em’. The kinds of people who live there can live around other ’special’ people just like themselves. They can have it allllll to themselves.
November 26th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
“Just lots of chest beating with words “I am an investor” – that’s all he has.”
Good point.
All the poor man has is an obligation to pay the bank his money. Better keep working that debt treadmill.
November 26th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
>>All the poor man has is an obligation to pay the bank his money.
I pay the bank. You pay your landlord. My payment goes down each time I refinance. Your rent goes up over time. My house becomes 100% mine after 30 years. You always own exactly 0% of your rental. Who is the poor man here?
November 26th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
You. Obviously. Maybe in 30 years you will have an asset. In the meantime, you don’t. You have debt. So shut up. Here’s a lesson, poor man:
Your net worth is your assets minus your liabilities.
You owe more on your house than you have in the bank, therefore you have negative net worth.
Why do I feel like a second grade teacher?
November 26th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Ever talked to a financial advisor? Mortgage debt is considered “good debt”, second grader.
November 26th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
You are so incredibly stupid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
As if that wasn’t enough to refute your statement, I will offer some more help. Debt is debt and the only thing that matters is the interest rate. If you had a rudimentary mathematical ability (as an engineer should), you would know this.
Keep working your house off, chump.
November 26th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
I actually agree. Interest rate does matter. Currently we’re at historically low interest rate. Thus, it’s a great time to buy a home, if you can find one.
November 27th, 2009 at 1:22 am
My house becomes 100% mine after 30 years. You always own exactly 0% of your rental. Who is the poor man here?
—–
What a simpleton! You pay more than twice the amount of home value to own it. In RBA, it’s very likely the mortgage you pay more than double than the rental price of equivalent home.
A poor man is one who pays double to have the label “homeowner”.
November 27th, 2009 at 1:26 am
If you had a rudimentary mathematical ability (as an engineer should), you would know this.
—–
Math is really hard for some people.
He claims to be “average tech guy”. He also claims to be “real estate investor”. It’s obvious that he is neither.
November 27th, 2009 at 1:41 am
Thus, it’s a great time to buy a home, if you can find one.
—–
It’s ALWAYS great time to buy. Was there a time when it was NOT great/right time to buy? Never.
Right time to buy.
Right/best/perfect time to buy.
More right time to buy.
Awesome time to buy.
See, it is always great time buy. And it requires a great amount of analysis/research/expertise to tell that “it is great time to buy”. Only RealEstater can do it.
November 27th, 2009 at 9:39 am
>>You pay more than twice the amount of home value to own it. In RBA, it’s very likely the mortgage you pay more than double than the rental price of equivalent home.
Such is the logic of the real simpleton without ability to see beyond the immediate situation.
The fact is, you pay twice the amount over 30 years. However, on the average your home value doubles every 10 years (check BA home prices 30 years ago. The proof is undeniable). How many times will your home price double over the course of 30 years? Math is really hard for some people!
I bought my home in 2003, and I can easily rent it out today for my monthly mortgage payment. Why is Pralay off by a mile? Because he sees the world as never changing: If it’s cheaper to rent today than to buy, it must be so over 30 years. If the market was going down in Q4 2008, it must follow that trajectory into eternity, and home prices will be back to 1980 levels before you know it.
Pralay has found the perfect word for himself: Mr. Simpleton. The result reflects this. Here’s one thing that’s unlikely to change over time: Mr. Simpleton will rent in Santa Clara for the foreseeable future, and he will jump up and down at anybody who tries to improve their situation by taking advantage of the right time to buy (e.g. SV Shopper).
November 27th, 2009 at 9:54 am
However, on the average your home value doubles every 10 years (check BA home prices 30 years ago. The proof is undeniable).
—–
Past performance does not guarantee future performance.
November 27th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Neither Pralay nor anon understand the meaning of the word “investment”. In simpleton terms, an investment means you have to spend money to make money. Pralay and anon would not buy a home because they don’t get that a home is a long term investment. It may not yield an immediate return, or even a return in 1, 2 years, but over the life of a mortgage, it’s one of the best investments you can make, particularly if you take taxes into account. Imagine if you have Pralay or anon run a drug company. They would never put any money into R&D, because a new drug may not get approved by the FDA for 10 or more years.
November 27th, 2009 at 9:58 am
>>Past performance does not guarantee future performance.
If such performance has been delivered for the past 50 years, what do you think the odds are it will happen again?
November 27th, 2009 at 10:04 am
If the market was going down in Q4 2008, it must follow that trajectory into eternity, and home prices will be back to 1980 levels before you know it.
—–
Atleast our FakeEstater is tacitly admitting that market was going down in Q4 2008. Let’s go back to checkout what FakeEstater was telling us in Q4 2008.
November 2008:
Guys, average homes are selling higher than asking. Run, run, buy something.
November 27th, 2009 at 10:08 am
If such performance has been delivered for the past 50 years, what do you think the odds are it will happen again?
—–
Investment decision based on past performance it is nothing but SPECULATION. Still want to call yourself “investor”?
In past, cherry orchards with cheap lands were transformed into hitech offices. What are the underlying conditions that is going to make home price double in next 10 years? Care to explain?
November 27th, 2009 at 10:12 am
If such performance has been delivered for the past 50 years, what do you think the odds are it will happen again?
—–
In 1970s you could say same thing about Detroit. I am not comparing bay area with Detroit, but just showing the absurdity of your argument.
November 27th, 2009 at 10:20 am
I bought my home in 2003, and I can easily rent it out today for my monthly mortgage payment. Why is Pralay off by a mile? Because he sees the world as never changing: If it’s cheaper to rent today than to buy, it must be so over 30 years.
——
So, tell me about 2003. As I wasn’t living in Bay Area that time, I would be curious to know it. Was it cheaper to rent in 2003 than buy? Or same? And compare it with 2008. Is it still cheaper to rent?
November 27th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Neither Pralay nor anon understand the meaning of the word “investment”. In simpleton terms, an investment means you have to spend money to make money.
—–
The best “investment” advice our FakeEstater came with is: “Look at the past 30 years. Home value doubled. Therefore it will double 10 in next years. Don’t look at the underlying factors which can play otherwise. Just buy it.”.
And don’t forget this is the same guy who is planning to buy in investment property for more than one and half years. Poor guy, it is NEVER a “right time to buy” for him.
November 27th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Imagine if you have Pralay or anon run a drug company. They would never put any money into R&D, because a new drug may not get approved by the FDA for 10 or more years.
—–
Bottomline, they don’t put money, due to the enormous volume of failure rate. However, they make profit when a drug become successful.
November 27th, 2009 at 10:52 am
and he will jump up and down at anybody who tries to improve their situation by taking advantage of the right time to buy (e.g. SV Shopper).
—–
I am little hope on the improvement of SV “wife-big-on-education” Shopper’s situation. This guy is losing bid everyday. At least that’s what he is claiming. I am waiting for another update from him saying he lost another bid (and another forecast “price is going to be higher next year”).
November 27th, 2009 at 11:29 am
If the market was going down in Q4 2008, it must follow that trajectory into eternity, and home prices will be back to 1980 levels before you know it.
—–
And how could I forget FakeEstater’s Q4 2008 comment about “on-going party”! After quoting several lines from Fall ‘08 Real Estate Guide (you know who are the guys paid for this “guide”), sometimes quoting partial lines to bolster his point, he ends this comment wth following:
1. Smart real estate investor, an opportunist to grab properties in good price.
2. A desperate real estate agent looking for his commission.
3. A homeowner hoping to fund his retirement from the equity of his primary residence (if any equity remains at all).
November 27th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Pralay/Bob,
Ever wondered why so many people put their money on the line to buy a house during a recession? Hint: It’s not because buying a house is an expense.
November 27th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
FakeEstater,
You question is wrong (because it is suggestive, non-factual and lacks details). And your hint it wrong too.
The correct hint would have been: falling knife.
November 27th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
“Imagine if you have Pralay or anon run a drug company. They would never put any money into R&D, because a new drug may not get approved by the FDA for 10 or more years.”
LOL – Did this idiot seriously liken R&D expenses to a house? Amazing.
Anyway, here’s an on the ground report: I’m up in my north shore Tahoe cabin for the week and let me tell you – it’s wonderfully quiet. Places which would have been buzzing last year are virtually dead. No lines anywhere and traffic is minimal – I sure am seeing signs of the recession up here. And it’s about time.
November 27th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Oh, and one more thing. Is Warren Buffet an investor? Guess how many homes he owns.
November 27th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
I bought my home in 2003, and I can easily rent it out today for my monthly mortgage payment.
—–
Ok, let’s try to verify what our FakeEstater is claiming. I am assuming he bought a sub-million home in 94301 in 2003 with 5.5% interest rate. This comparison is not exact, but provides some idea.
I googled and found this home sale record online. There is no sub-million sale in 94301 in this list. The closest one I found in 94303 zipcode – 3948 Bibbit Dr. 3BD, 2BA, 1421sqft. Sold in 2003 for $860K. Zestimate $1.1M.
Assuming $160K downpayment and 5.5% rate, it makes roughly $4600K+ monthly mortgage payment.
Let’s check how much equivalent properties in Palo Alto are renting nowadays.
2557 Ross Road in same zipcode. 1414 sqft, 3BD, 1BA. Zestimate $1.1M. Rent $3125. If it was 2BA, probably the rent would have been $200 higher.
This one in South Palo Alto – 422 Carolina Lane. 4BD, 2BA, 1527 sqft. Rent $3600. The rental ad says “new furniture and bedding/cooking tools can be provided FREE by landlord”. Not bad! How much it would sell? Well, it is in market now – for $1.15M.
That means if FakeEstater bought this kind of properties in 2003, most likely he would be still cashflow negative with his $4600K+ mortgage payments (and I am not even counting the lost investment opportunity of his $160K downpayment). Ok, he is in prestigious zipcode. Slap $100-$500 on rental price for it – depending on location and condition of property. Still cashflow negative – AFTER SIX YEARS. No wonder he is having hard time to find his “sweet spot“.
(cont in next comment)
November 27th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Finally, let’s search craiglist to find out what rents in Palo Alto with $4500+ rental price.
1010 Waverley St: “Historic Birge Clark home built in 1922. 4 bedrooms, 3 and a half bath”. Rent price $5000. This one on sale for $1.95M.
Everett Ave. 3BR, 2.5BA. Rent price $4900.
Did this kind of properties sell for $860K (or $900K) in 2003, FakeEstater?
November 27th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
RBA is still massively cash flow negative (by definition). But I think there’s been enough appreciation so that a 2003 buyer is still ahead.
November 28th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Ever wondered why so many people put their money on the line to buy a house during a recession? Hint: It’s not because buying a house is an expense.
Actually, a lot less people do so because:
A: They are losing their jobs
B: Houses are no longer increasing in value ( except for the trash at the bottom- aka- ghettoloand areas)
C: Rent also goes down in cost.
D: In this market credit is tight.
Lastly, I’ll agree that there are some people buying now. Those people are generally stupid. Its not like they’re getting great deals since the prices are still high in most nicer areas.
And once more, you lack general investment knowledge. Like I’ve said countless times before, Stocks will beat the living crap out of real estate every time and it has done so for over 100 years. Generally stocks outperform real estate almost double. But you don’t have to believe me even though my investments even in this economy are actually doing quite well.
Lastly- if the only game you have is a house you bought in 2003, then you’re not actually that wise on an investor. You didn’t buy at the peak, but you bought well into bubble territory. If anything, you might be up a little. Hardly worth all the hoopla you’ve made about it. If anything you’re more of a over exaggerated simpleton. Whoopie! You “Own” a house! Not really. You are “paying” for a house the bank owns until its paid off. My future house will be bought and paid for years before you come even close, it will be in an area with more positive growth and appreciation ( its still appreciating) and on top of that, I’ll have all my investments in place.
So you can keep on telling us what a genius you are just because you were like all the other uneducated lemmings buying houses in the Bay Area during a bubble. Frankly, I don’t think many are buying it.