The Housing Market

[captmorgandrinker | 1,649]

On 5/2/2022 at 7:15 PM, Code Monkey said:

A realtor knocked on my door today and offered me $65,000 more than I paid in October for my house. He said he has clients that really want to be on this street in particular and the market has gone insane. He's literally going door to door asking people to sell.

They need to be coming off of a lot more than that for overage; at least 150k like RH mentioned and the movers too.

You'd still need to buy something that is going to be equally overpriced and go through the hassle of moving again.  Once you look at the expenses $65k might end up costing you money.

[RH | 4,908]

7 minutes ago, captmorgandrinker said:

They need to be coming off of a lot more than that for overage; at least 150k like RH mentioned and the movers too.

You'd still need to buy something that is going to be equally overpriced and go through the hassle of moving again.  Once you look at the expenses $65k might end up costing you money.

Yeah, I threw out $150k, but that's because in my case that's a bit under 50% the value of my home (which IS nuts) and I figured that was a reasonable amount to maybe make it worth it, but possibly not.  You do have to live somewhere and if it takes. you 60 days to land a home and orchestrate the money movement, well, if homes go up 10-15%, then you still just lost a lot of money... still might not be worth it, depending on the area you're in!

Also, I live outside of Charlotte.  That post above just shows how bad it is, when people are moving from the exceptionally over-priced markets and moving to this region.  Historically, we've been one of the "cheapest" regions in the US with desirable land and amenities, so I feel it's not apples to apples but regardless, people in these other regions with these problems are selling off there $1m homes that are under 1,000 sq. ft., and pushing up our markets.  Not a complaint, but that's what's happening here and I guess some of those people are willing to be waaaaay outside of Charlotte just to have some "breathing room", which is why we're even seeing it here in our small town.

We just need to sell our home in a couple years and move to a mountain chalet on a well maintained road in the mountains of  Boone, NC.  I won't have a good data line for my work but, man, I hope that's how we can retire one day.

[Tabonga | 2,320]

18 minutes ago, captmorgandrinker said:

They need to be coming off of a lot more than that for overage; at least 150k like RH mentioned and the movers too.

You'd still need to buy something that is going to be equally overpriced and go through the hassle of moving again.  Once you look at the expenses $65k might end up costing you money.

Since he has owned the house less than 2 years I think he would have to pay capital gains on that 65K which makes the offer even less attractive.

Our house before this one was in what became the hottest areas (for a time) in Denver and it got really annoying since we got fliers on the door, mailers, phone calls and realtors would accost me when I was mowing the lawn.  Usually the line was "I have someone that really really wants to live in this neighborhood" - well excuse me that is why I moved here.

Lately my current neighborhood has gotten desireable and the same things are happening here.  A pox upon their houses - why don't they sell those.

 

[avatar! | 1,818]

Bel Air mega-mansion listed for $87.8 million flops at auction and the celebrity developer seller is furious

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bel-air-mega-mansion-listed-161003169.html

A lavish Bel Air mansion that was listed for $87.8 million reportedly received just half of the asking price when it went to auction last week. According to CNBC, the highest bid for the property was just under $45.8 million — around 52% of the mammoth asking price.

The property’s seller, celebrity dermatologist and developer Alex Khadavi, told CNBC the auction results were “horrible, horrible, horrible." "Nobody told me this thing’s going to go below, below this level,” he added.

Alex, I'm going to go with "no one gives a shite about your overpriced mansion and problems" for $200. I personally hope all such mega-mansions and property for the ultra-rich dry up. I hope there are laws put in place that will stop said developers from purchasing houses left and right so that they can just jack-up the rent. I hope these people are burned at the stake...

[Tabonga | 2,320]

2 hours ago, avatar! said:

Bel Air mega-mansion listed for $87.8 million flops at auction and the celebrity developer seller is furious

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bel-air-mega-mansion-listed-161003169.html

A lavish Bel Air mansion that was listed for $87.8 million reportedly received just half of the asking price when it went to auction last week. According to CNBC, the highest bid for the property was just under $45.8 million — around 52% of the mammoth asking price.

The property’s seller, celebrity dermatologist and developer Alex Khadavi, told CNBC the auction results were “horrible, horrible, horrible." "Nobody told me this thing’s going to go below, below this level,” he added.

Alex, I'm going to go with "no one gives a shite about your overpriced mansion and problems" for $200. I personally hope all such mega-mansions and property for the ultra-rich dry up. I hope there are laws put in place that will stop said developers from purchasing houses left and right so that they can just jack-up the rent. I hope these people are burned at the stake...

At least it didn't come with strangers in the basement.........

[Tanooki | 4,934]

Hahaha if you watch that bravo show with the realtors in the LA area, bet you he took the advice of this dumb swede they added, he'll tell anyone a price to get the bid for the contract, then squirms when shit won't sell or comes in far under.

[Tenjikuronin | 1,732]

[avatar! | 1,818]

Now that home prices are going down, rents are going up and up and up!

No, the ordinance really is NOT unlawful, it's just that it would help the working class and keep scumbags from cashing in, and well, scumbags hate not being able to cash in! By the way, in my mind "scumbag" mostly refers to the large companies that purchase thousand upon thousands of homes and then jack-up the rents.

[avatar! | 1,818]

San Francisco voters back Prop. M, a vacancy tax on landlords

The ballot measure is a warning shot at landlords who are sitting on multiple vacant units, but it includes some notable carve-outs that critics say will blunt its impact. Starting on Jan. 1, 2024, property owners with at least three units that have been vacant for more than 182 days (six months) will be taxed between $2,500 and $5,000 per empty unit. In ensuing years, that penalty will increase to as much as $20,000 per empty unit. The penalty money collected will go to a housing activation fund, which will subsidize affordable housing, including for individuals over the age of 60 in the city.

I don't say this often, but here it is - nice job SF!

I think most every large city needs to have this. Boston needed this a decade ago. As it stands, Boston is now MORE EXPENSIVE THAN SF to rent!! Yup, a 1-bedroom in Boston is a hair more expensive than SF at over $3000. Utter bullshite.

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

29 minutes ago, avatar! said:

San Francisco voters back Prop. M, a vacancy tax on landlords

The ballot measure is a warning shot at landlords who are sitting on multiple vacant units, but it includes some notable carve-outs that critics say will blunt its impact. Starting on Jan. 1, 2024, property owners with at least three units that have been vacant for more than 182 days (six months) will be taxed between $2,500 and $5,000 per empty unit. In ensuing years, that penalty will increase to as much as $20,000 per empty unit. The penalty money collected will go to a housing activation fund, which will subsidize affordable housing, including for individuals over the age of 60 in the city.

I don't say this often, but here it is - nice job SF!

I think most every large city needs to have this. Boston needed this a decade ago. As it stands, Boston is now MORE EXPENSIVE THAN SF to rent!! Yup, a 1-bedroom in Boston is a hair more expensive than SF at over $3000. Utter bullshite.

The issue is that there’s a Carve out for two unit only vacancies. So it only really affects about 10% of the vacant units. The last article I read said there’s about 40,000 in the city, and this only affects 4000. 
 

Well I agree it was a step in the right direction, I wish it had a little bit more teeth.

[avatar! | 1,818]

Well, housing costs have gone up since... okay, can you guess when this is from?

[Dr. Morbis | 2,089]

2 hours ago, avatar! said:

Well, housing costs have gone up since... okay, can you guess when this is from?

...From a time when they didn't bother to put a bathroom upstairs?  One bathroom in a four bedroom house does not sound like a lot of fun.

I also like how the biggest bedroom doesn't have the balcony either, so which one is the master: the one with the balcony or the one that's much larger than all the rest?

EDIT - The largest bedroom also has a window in the closet!?!  WTF!!!

Edited March 7, 2023 by Dr. Morbis

[Tulpa | 3,510]

24 minutes ago, Dr. Morbis said:

EDIT - The largest bedroom also has a window in the closet!?!  WTF!!!

I lived in a place where my closet had a window. Of course, it was a walk-in closet on the second floor.

[B.A. | 1,139]

6 hours ago, Dr. Morbis said:

...From a time when they didn't bother to put a bathroom upstairs?  One bathroom in a four bedroom house does not sound like a lot of fun.

I also like how the biggest bedroom doesn't have the balcony either, so which one is the master: the one with the balcony or the one that's much larger than all the rest?

EDIT - The largest bedroom also has a window in the closet!?!  WTF!!!

The lack of bathrooms was the first thing I noticed too. That house would probably have 4 of them if built today.

[Link | 2,714]

I bet some of those rooms only have one electrical outlet too! 

[LeatherRebel5150 | 1,056]

11 hours ago, avatar! said:

Well, housing costs have gone up since... okay, can you guess when this is from?

 

9 hours ago, Dr. Morbis said:

...From a time when they didn't bother to put a bathroom upstairs?  One bathroom in a four bedroom house does not sound like a lot of fun.

I also like how the biggest bedroom doesn't have the balcony either, so which one is the master: the one with the balcony or the one that's much larger than all the rest?

EDIT - The largest bedroom also has a window in the closet!?!  WTF!!!

 

8 hours ago, Tulpa said:

I lived in a place where my closet had a window. Of course, it was a walk-in closet on the second floor.

 

2 hours ago, B.A. said:

The lack of bathrooms was the first thing I noticed too. That house would probably have 4 of them if built today.

That add is from a reddit post. It’s a Sears home. I think it was from the 1920’s

[Link | 2,714]

https://antiquehomestyle.com/plans/sears/1916sears/sears-264b179.htm

 

[RH | 4,908]

Well, it didn't come with the brick, plaster and cement (which I can kind of understand.)  I have no clue how much those materials would cost and sense cement was still new-ish then it might have been a bit more expensive than today.  I'm guessing this was a 1,500 home for goods/materials?  What would a typical home like that cost in goods alone? I have no clue since prices have gotten insane but I'd guess maybe $125-150k?

A lot of property value is in location and labor.

I'd also be willing to be that for everyone one of these homes built off of this catalog purchase, if any exist today, they've all been renovated on the second floor to include a bathroom.  Since you would have needed some type of home builder anyway, I'm guessing the reason why there was a window in thecloset was so that the buyer had the option to work with the builder to shop out plumbing and parts to add a second-floor bathroom.  It'd be tight, but you could make it work.

[Link | 2,714]

Notable that the price is for material, not the house itself. Construction and labor are not included. Neither is all the material (excluding cement, brick, and plaster). I guess this is for lumber only? Hard to imagine trim is included if there's no plaster on the walls, too. Is the plumbing even included? (edit: gas? electric?) Not everybody even had indoor plumbing by this point so 1 bath / 4 bed isn't out of the ordinary, for the time. Lots of stuff would be different now. Closets would also be bigger now and staircases likely wider. (I recently had staircases rebuilt, and they are not to code so I had to either work without permits and inspection, or move walls just to make them wider.)

Edited March 7, 2023 by Link

[Link | 2,714]

10 minutes ago, RH said:

 

Jinx. Owe me a beer!

[G-type | 2,482]

3 hours ago, Link said:

I bet some of those rooms only have one electrical outlet too! 

I bet they don't even have wi-fi!

[LeatherRebel5150 | 1,056]

3 hours ago, RH said:

Well, it didn't come with the brick, plaster and cement (which I can kind of understand.)  I have no clue how much those materials would cost and sense cement was still new-ish then it might have been a bit more expensive than today.  I'm guessing this was a 1,500 home for goods/materials?  What would a typical home like that cost in goods alone? I have no clue since prices have gotten insane but I'd guess maybe $125-150k?

A lot of property value is in location and labor.

I'd also be willing to be that for everyone one of these homes built off of this catalog purchase, if any exist today, they've all been renovated on the second floor to include a bathroom.  Since you would have needed some type of home builder anyway, I'm guessing the reason why there was a window in thecloset was so that the buyer had the option to work with the builder to shop out plumbing and parts to add a second-floor bathroom.  It'd be tight, but you could make it work.

 

3 hours ago, Link said:

Notable that the price is for material, not the house itself. Construction and labor are not included. Neither is all the material (excluding cement, brick, and plaster). I guess this is for lumber only? Hard to imagine trim is included if there's no plaster on the walls, too. Is the plumbing even included? (edit: gas? electric?) Not everybody even had indoor plumbing by this point so 1 bath / 4 bed isn't out of the ordinary, for the time. Lots of stuff would be different now. Closets would also be bigger now and staircases likely wider. (I recently had staircases rebuilt, and they are not to code so I had to either work without permits and inspection, or move walls just to make them wider.)

You can kinda still get the same concept. Though in cabin form

https://www.logcabinhomes.com

[avatar! | 1,818]

7 hours ago, RH said:

I'm guessing this was a 1,500 home for goods/materials?  What would a typical home like that cost in goods alone? I have no clue since prices have gotten insane but I'd guess maybe $125-150k?

Inflation from 1916 to today is some 2645% which translates to around $26,000 up from the $938. Some people delved more deeply into the topic
https://www.creekrealtymn.com/uncategorized/hop-in-the-wayback-machine-what-did-it-cost-to-buy-a-home-in-1916/

And determined that a new house in 1916, based upon those plans, would be around $3200. That translates to $88,000 today. Clearly, housing is way way beyond inflation. It also shows us that housing was very different back then. Most people lived in smaller houses in a nuclear or extended family situation. In many ways that is coming back en vogue, largely because of ridiculous prices for housing. Today, mirrors the "Roaring Twenties" in many ways, and not particularly in good ways. Here is an interesting scholarly article on the working poor of the 1920s and how it mirrors today - granted the paper is from 2013.

https://vc.bridgew.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1873&context=br_rev

[avatar! | 1,818]

17 hours ago, Dr. Morbis said:

...From a time when they didn't bother to put a bathroom upstairs?  One bathroom in a four bedroom house does not sound like a lot of fun.

I've lived in a house which only had bathrooms upstairs! It was a rental, but it was a full house with no downstairs bathroom. It was built in 2003.  Not a big house, but at some 1900 ft^2 it was not tiny either. Two bathrooms upstairs. I'm not surprised a house from 1916 only has a bathroom downstairs. Believe it or not, having indoor plumbing in 1916 was ahead of the curve.

https://www.antiquehomestyle.com/inside/bathrooms/index.htm

Edited March 7, 2023 by avatar!

[doner24 | 1,196]

29 minutes ago, avatar! said:

I've lived in a house which only had bathrooms upstairs! It was a rental, but it was a full house with no downstairs bathroom. It was built in 2003.  Not a big house, but at some 1900 ft^2 it was not tiny either. Two bathrooms upstairs. I'm not surprised a house from 1916 only has a bathroom downstairs. Believe it or not, having indoor plumbing in 1916 was ahead of the curve.

https://www.antiquehomestyle.com/inside/bathrooms/index.htm

My parents house was built in 1876 and the only full bathroom is upstairs. A toilet was added downstairs a few decades ago.