Did the Research - No Changes
A few days ago, a comment was posted that ziprealty.com was a better source than realtor.com. I promised to do some research, and I did.
ziprealty.com is a real estate sales company. They pull their listings from the exact same place realtor.com does, the MLS. Searching in San Pedro, I found 312 listings on ziprealty and 374 on realtor.com.
The least expensive unit I found on ziprealty was a 760 sq.ft. condo, 1-bedroom, 1-bath for $265,000. But then there was also the 2-bedroom, 1-bath at 672 sq.ft. for $450,000. Talking about living in something the size of a garage!
realtor.com had 374 listings. The least expensive was a dump at 742 Summerland. 2-bedroom, 1-bath for $299,000. Another glorified garage, but at least $150,000 less than the other garage. Plus it was 70 sq.ft. larger.
That is as far as I took it. I saw no sense in looking at the $1,000,000+ properties and I do not have the time to parse each of 686 listings, many of which are duplicates.
So my original theory remains unchanged. There are definitely reasons to buy an existing home. But in San Pedro, price is not one of them. There is not a large pool of quality existing housing priced below $450,000.
Oh, and for those of you who want to point out all those wonderful places up in that monster complex on Miraleste Drive, that is not San Pedro. They are in Rancho Palos Verdes. Sorry, but it's not in our town, so you cannot use them for comparison.
So I must reiterate, the thing that new construction adds is a large pool of available housing with a wide range of choices from lofts to 4-bedrooms. Then there is the added benefit of quality construction. You don't need to worry about the electrical, or the plumbing, or dry rot, or termites, etc., etc..
Tom Field
13 comments:
Excuse me, Mr Field,
If you look more closely at maps, you will find that complex on Miraleste Drive is on the eastern side of the road, south of 1st. Street, and therefore, in San Pedro.
One other issue I wish to remind you of that where I live and where so many others live, even though it is not technically "in San Pedro", those of us who have lived it this area for many years consider OUR community to be included in the larger "San Pedro" area.
If you really want to use boundaries of San Pedro, then perhaps you should let everybody know that if they were born at San Pedro Community Hospital, San Pedro Peninsula Hospital, Little Company of Mary, San Pedro Hospital, whether it was the old two-story brick structure all the way up to the time you can drive past it today, it is NOT in San Pedro at all. It is SURROUNDED by San Pedro, but the gound it is standing is in the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County, just like all the doctors' offices are on 6th. Street.
Please Mr. Field, do not downplay the area that was formerly in the 90732 zip code and now is part of the 90275 zip code.
Even though I consider that I grew up in San Pedro, I have never lived within the city limits of Los Angeles, but I do consider that I was a San Pedran from 1955, and though my home is in the Mira Vista tract of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, it still is San Pedro to a whole lot of residents.
MW
Mr. Wells,
I'm not trying to downplay anything. I'm just going by what people say. The prevalent opinion in the Miraleste area is that they are part of Rancho Palos Verdes. Looking at a map it seems to be more typical Los Angeles gerrymandering. That huge complex technically is part of LA, therefore San Pedro. So on that point I stand corrected. But the balance of what is called Miraleste is outside the LA city limits. So which way do we call this one?
Even if you include the huge complex on Miraleste Drive, prices are not very much better. Plus at least 50% or more of the complex is renters. Nothing against renters since everyone has a right to live someplace. Yet a condo complex that has that high a percentage of renters, loses market value.
And since you include your neighborhood as part of San Pedro, what is available for less than $500,000 on your side of Western?
Thank you for the comments and for the correction.
Tom
Thanks Tom,
I guess there are folks living in the former Miraleste Village apartment complex that are "R.P.V. wannabes". I used to work at Green Valley Pre-school, which was located in the western area of the complex in 1974-1976.
Your point is well taken about the affordability, or lack thereof, in the R.P.V. zip code near Western Avenue.
What is lower for condominium units in the area, supply or demand, in your opinion? I have heard that the Center Street lofts are not completely sold out yet and I don't know how sales are going at Seaport, The Vue, or other sites currently being constructed. If Urban Village finally gets built, do you think all of the 251 units will get sold quickly?
I am thinking that before we rush to build a giant complex like Ponte Vista, we should really give a hard look at what the future of the housing marking will look like between now and 2012, and whether all the, currently-under-construction units get sold quickly.
With the Ponte Vista project, it simply is currently planned to be so big, OUR community has just one chance to get it correct, or suffer the consequences of being wrong for generations.
I lobby for getting it correct on this, our only chance
MW
P.S. Tom, I still wish I knew who you really are, but I do like discussing things on your blog.
Hi Tom,
Thanks for responding to my comment with a whole post! I appreciate the your efforts, and am glad you were able to find more listings.
Here are some points I would like to make:
1) You mentioned the units you looked at being the 'size of a garage' and 'glorified garage'. Aren't the proposed Ponte Vista's affordable units about the same size? I have heard some references to units as small as 600sq ft. With the average price of a Ponte Vista unit being around 700k and prices to over 1.2 million, I would tend to think that anything that isn't a 'glorified garage' is going to be quite expensive.
2) You reference the condo complex on Miraleste Drive as a 'monster complex' and mention it has at least 50% renters which causes a loss in market value. I agree. Wouldn't that make Ponte Vista a super humongous monster complex? How can anyone stop Ponte Vista from being rented out?
I look forward to your response. Thanks.
"owner occupied" is limited to one year set forth in ccr's. The greater the density at Ponte Vista, the more investors bite. Bisno is quite the fisherman in the pool of investors.
Anonymous 6:59am
How can you say what "owner occupied" is limited to by the CC&Rs since they have not been written yet?
This is one of the valid concerns Mark Wells and Anonymous 12:18pm raise. Limiting renters CAN be limited by the CC&Rs. But, since they have not been written yet, there is that unknown we need to deal with.
To Anonymous 12:18pm, I'm planning on creating a post to address your point of "average" price and the relative expensiveness of units at Ponte Vista. Please bear with me. In the meanwhile, do you have any idea approximately how many units are in the Miraleste complex. Sorry, but I have to confess ignorance on the exact #.
Tom
Howdy Tom,
The Laurel Tree Apartment complex became a condominium complex in February, 1979 and I got the name of it very wrong.
Miraleste Canyon Estates is the name it goes by now and its Web site is: http://www.miralesteonline.org/4.html
I started reading the CC&Rs but haven't been able to find the number of units at the complex.
It is my opinion from reading and from learning from folks who actually live in condominium complexes, no CC&R is so ironclad enough to keep renters or leasees out of complexes especially when those rules are not inforced by the management company of the complex.
Bob won't be the manager of whatever is built at Ponte Vista, so I don't know if we should trust any management company that is brought in.
Perhaps if a management company is selected, then interested folks should look at the other properties that company manages and see how many units become rented out or leased out. I think that would be fair, don't you?
MW
Mark,
Yes, absolutely fair. But it would be the HOA's obligation. They would not take over the project until it was completed. That makes it a bit difficult for us to evaluate now.
Tom
Tom, so true, so true. I guess we will have to accept Ponte Vista's gambling that they will choose a HOA management company that will insure that if owner-occupied units are built, then they stay that way for as long as the units stand.
My proposal/wish for a Senior Housing section and the rest of the site built with single-family, detached housing would better deal with the loss of property values in the area and keep most renters out of the single-family units, that could not afford the high "rents" that they may also have.
Having the least amount of renters in a development is a goal I wish we all shared.
MW
Whatever...Tom. Blah, blah, blah.
Keep it simple. You know for a fact that there is plenty of housing available (it's been proven by the website). Some is "affordable" and some is expensive. The market dictates "affordability". All you (Tom) do is then start putting all sorts of qualifiers in the picture to falsly dilute the pool of available housing. It's too small, it's in a lousy neighborhood, it's too old,.... Sorry dude, but it's available, it's affordable and it's housing. Admit you are wrong and think of some other way to support Bisno's money.
I predict a "moderators" deletion coming....
Anonymous 11:19am
Why can't you just be civil? If you want to be heard, it works a whole lot better than insults.
Sorry to bore you, but it is not just "blah, blah, blah". "..it's housing" is really one of the most illogical statements I have seen on this blog. Just because something "is available" and "it's housing" does not make it comparable. You have heard of "comps" haven't you. You know those pesky things that real estate people and banks use to make certain what you are buying is actually in the same price and quality range as other housing in the area.
So, as much as you would like to "Keep it simple.", it is not. You cannot compare a 30-year old piece of junk SFR, with a 20-year old condo in Miraleste Canyon Estates, with a new loft in the Vue. You might feel comfortable throwing your money away on a shanty, but I(and I'm certain many other) do not.
There is no way to keep the analysis of real estate simple. It is a complex matter which requires an entire industry of professionals who do nothing except devote their time to it. All levels of business and government spend lots and lots of man-hours trying to analyze and predict it.
"Simple" doesn't work. That is of course, unless you want to close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears, and chant "R1, R1, R1, R1...."
Comps, Would that be comparing condos at The Center Street Lofts, Seaport Luxury Homes, or any other newly built condominium complex in the area?
What about "comps" in association with new SFR's? We may have to go back as far as Tarragona to finde SFR's that are zoned R1. Maybe The Cape and Enclave are comparable to each other, but they are both considered condominium developments even though each home is a single-family home. Perhaps Highland Park's new 134 SFR units, again in a condominium development may be a comp to The Cape and/or The Enclave, but I am still looking for comps of SFRs on R1 sized lots and to find a development of that kind, I think I need to travel to Westchester to find any within a project more comparable to the Ponte Vista site.
So, it looks to me there are plenty of "comps" in the area if you are looking for places in new or newer condominium projects, but if you are looking for comps of new SFRs on R1 lots, in a larger setting then a few lots, then you are not going to find any, anywhere near OUR community.
This begs the question I feel, if we have so many comps with new condominium developments in the area, and more coming, why can't we have some comps in terms of new or newer SFRs on R1 lots?
Ponte Vista will just add more comps to the seemingly already crowded condominium projects we have throughout northwest San Pedro and central San Pedro.
MW
It's funny Tom, you preach "no insults" yet I could pick apart your response to me and interpret parts of it as insulting and condesending.
Anyhow, yes I can keep it simple because the premise of the Bisno supporters has been simple in that they claim we need more affordable housing...period! If they came out and said we need more affordable housing that is a large size, brand new home/condo/townhome, in a great area of San Pedro, people would simply laugh and say you are dreaming. Ponte Vista will NOT be "affordable" Tom. First time buyers in San Pedro will have to settle for smaller, older housing. That's just reality Tom. This is not Hemet. Bob Bisno knows that and he will get MARKET value for his new, nice condos. Not "affordable". There will always be plenty of MORE affordable older housing in San Pedro. And you can't deny the quantity and availability of the older affordable housing. Also take into account all the other approved condo developments that are being built and you could SIMPLY determine that there is and will be plenty of housing opportunities in San Pedro without Ponte Vista.
Tom, you are trying to overthink this thing as if Bisno will listen to you or any other credible group for that matter. Reality is that all your detailed planning and compromise is only good fodder for ridicule on this blog, More SP, Marks Blog or LOTE Blog. There are only two positions/sides that have any sort of real influence on the actual future outcome of Ponte Vista and I think you know what they are. One of them is not the CAC as we all finally found out.
Post a Comment