First 20 days of April

User Forum Topic
Submitted by SD Realtor on April 27, 2008 - 5:33pm

Some stats for 4/1 - 4/20


2008 solds 11 average 848,000
2007 solds 34 average 887,391


2008 solds 12 average 1,042M
2007 solds 16 average 921,156


2008 solds 13 average 466,746
2007 solds 13 average 583,538


2008 solds 27 average 406,944
2007 solds 20 average 514,000

92024 (aka known as frustration town by some posters)

2008 solds 22 average 927,113
2007 solds 29 average 982,110


2008 solds 5 average 1,016M
2007 solds 1 average 685,000


2008 solds 1 average 1.875M
2007 solds 2 average 815,000


2008 solds 7 average 2.130M
2007 solds 6 average 2.250M


2008 solds 12 average 2.123M
2007 solds 21 average 2.004M


2008 solds 17 average 1.164M
2007 solds 27 average 998.6M


2008 solds 6 average 1.807M
2007 solds 10 average 1.171M


2008 solds 16 average 709,750
2007 solds 14 average 789,678


2008 solds 14 average 621,528
2007 solds 19 average 674,657


2008 solds 17 average 555,635
2007 solds 29 average 645,992

92127 (4S used as a string search in the subdivision field)

2008 solds 3 average 832,666
2007 solds 9 average 828,418


2008 solds 1 average 1.785M
2007 solds 7 average 2.707M

91913 (Eastlake)

2008 solds 33 average 437,090
2007 solds 8 average 554,237


2008 solds 18 average 465,350
2007 solds 8 average 543,812


2008 solds 11 average 460,818
2007 solds 17 average 585,705

92126 (for my man AN)

2008 solds 23 average 411,986
2007 solds 21 average 509,071


So I have a few interesting conclusions but have to run and will post them later.

Submitted by citydweller on April 27, 2008 - 7:17pm.

Could one conclusion be that 91913 (Eastlake) is close to finding a bottom? That's a big jump in the number of units sold, and a 21% drop in the average price.

Submitted by sdrealtor on April 27, 2008 - 7:41pm.

My conclusions are pretty easy to see. Where prices have fallen by at least 10%, volume is healthy. Where prices are sticky, volume has fallen off a cliff.

Did I miss anything?

Submitted by SD Realtor on April 27, 2008 - 8:46pm.

My conclusions are.....drum roll... that it is to early to tell....sorry but I guess they are not so interesting. What I do think is kind of neat though is the spectrum of different behavior through the region.

I think that some of the higher end neighborhoods are mimics of what other neighborhoods did in 2005-2006. That is, nothing reaches a peak then goes down... Places hit a peak and then they kind of sit there... prices stay relatively constant but volume drops... look at 92037 for instance from the stats above... average price is up a little but volume is off... even 92130, same thing. So the more desireable areas that may not exhibit large price drops are showing the volume transition which is the first chink in the armor so to speak.

As far as places like Mira Mesa and Eastlake, I put them in here just to display the dichotomy of regionalized activity. Yes I know everyone here already knows this but it is neat to see in action. As can be seen these regions are farther along as noted by the volume. Price points are hit that do indeed trigger that 6 letter word that Piggs hate... DEMAND... It is to early to call a bottom on areas like these because we do not know the supply chain for these locations. While the NOD rate has not gone up for the past few months it has remained constant and at a VERY HIGH level. Similarly we still may see ALOT of supply come to these same regions over the next two years. Similarly we have not had any secondary phenomenah such as interest rate spikes and/or serious employment issues.

I do believe we have exhausted some of the downward risk in some of these areas. As we have seen posted, in some of these areas we are getting close and even meeting a break even point for investment properties. I would warn people again, don't project that nobody can afford 20% down for a home. The fact is many people cannot, but out of the population base here in San Diego, many others can.

Remember, just stick to the facts and statistics, don't speculate as to what other people may or may not have.

SD Realtor

Submitted by AN on April 27, 2008 - 10:45pm.

Thanks for putting 92126 in here for me and other people interested in 92126 area SD R. Greatly appreciated. At least for me and 92126, it seems like it's doing what it did last year, which is not a good thing. I though demand really picked up but it seems like the closing is no better than last year. It will be a very interesting winter this year. 18+% drop in one year is definitely no slouch.

Submitted by SD Realtor on April 27, 2008 - 10:56pm.

I agree with you... I think your analysis is objective.

The bounce that we have have seen has indeed been robust in comparison to the past several months of activity. Taken in context to yoy numbers it is heartening to see. I also think that there is a psychological different though right? I know last year I sold a listing in Summerset and the year before that a listing on Goleta. Both those homes took awhile to sell. This year as you well know AN the majority of the MM sales that we have seen have been like a feeding frenzy due to aggressive pricing. This of course explains the 18% drop.

So yeah what we need is alot more of these to exhaust the supply of these buyers out there AND/OR resellers who are non distressed to start pricing more aggressively.

SD Realtor

Submitted by AN on April 28, 2008 - 12:35am.

I was bored last night so I did some reading on Mira Mesa Town Council meeting minutes and I've discovered something very interest. There will be massive amount of new housing in Mira Mesa in the next 10 years. I say 10 because they didn't say exactly when they'll start building. They're planning to put over 5000 housing units in the area south of Mira Mesa and north of Miramar, between Camino Santa Fe and Camino Ruiz. The empty area north of Best Buy is also in final stages of planning, so they should theoretically be building soon. There will be 3 developments there. I'm not sure how many units will go there. The 3rd development will be at the corner of Camino Santa Fe and Calle Cristobal/Sorrento Valley Blvd. They plan to have a little over 100 units of mostly SFR and some twin homes. That development I think is on hold but I did see some developers w/ plans standing around that area when I drove home the other day. I wonder how 5000+ new homes in MM will affect the supply equation.

Submitted by Eugene on April 28, 2008 - 8:20am.

To supplement your numbers with my HPI

Preliminary April numbers (July '00 = 100%)

City average: 162% (median house value $421k)
Carmel Valley, 4S Ranch, Scripps Ranch: 167% ($849k)
Carlsbad, Encinitas: 181% ($719k)
Rancho Bernardo, Penasquitos, Carmel Mtn Ranch: 173% ($561k)
Bonita, Eastlake, Otay Ranch: 165% ($443k)
Clairemont, Linda Vista, Mira Mesa: 162% ($397k)
Vista, San Marcos, Escondido: 157% ($391k)
Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, San Ysidro: 170% ($360k)
54-94 corridor: 159% ($269k)

Justifiable price levels given current mortgage rates and 3% average inflation: 159% (conforming land), 142% (jumbo land)

All areas are close together and the pattern is even a little bit "upside-down", high-end areas are relatively more overpriced than low-end areas. This is the opposite of what we had in '05-'06.
Low end areas are quite reasonably priced at these rates. High end needs to come down another 15-20% to stabilize.

Also it's interesting to note that "median values" are consistently lower than average April sales prices. Good properties are moving and bad properties are sitting on the market (or off the market). It is especially true for Carlsbad, Encinitas, and Carmel Valley.

median value vs. average sales price
92008: 649k
92009: 755k vs 848k
92010: 573k
92011: 761k vs 1042k
92024: 796k vs 927k
92130: 965k vs 1164k

91913: 413k vs 437k
91915: 435k vs 465k
92126: 389k vs 412k
92056; 358k vs 407k

Submitted by Wickedheart on April 28, 2008 - 9:08am.

SD Realtor

Could you post stats for 92123 please?

Submitted by DWCAP on April 28, 2008 - 11:52am.


I have always been suprised that no one has ever built on the land behind best buy. I never knew what it was for, but I always guessed it was zoned wrong, or for some kinda park or something. Everytime I drive the 15S, I wounder "huh?". It just seems like a developers wet dream. ( I really hope they build apartments or condo's there. SD has a real lack of entry level housing, and with all the freeway noise, can they ever really be luxery ANYTHING?)

Now I have also kinda been suprised about the area around Camino SF and Calle Cristobal also, but I kinda figured the problem was that the would keep that land for a bridge to penesquitos or something. Seems like a good way to alliviate traffic accross the canyon, though I suppose alot of people would shit a brick. 100 homes seems like alot, but I dont see any reason that it wouldnt work. You can just be damn sure they want to use the 92121 area code if at all possible rather then the 92126. I wonder if that isnt why they are delayed.

As for the 3000+ in the Canyon, ill need to read up on that. Seems like a pipe dream, but what do I know. Thanks for the heads up.

As for the effect on demand, I dont know. But Sdlookup has 23079 households as the listed number in MM. Assuming that translates into number of housing units, an increase of 21% to that number seems like it would hurt. Especially in the least desirable areas of MM. Who wants to buy a 1120sqft house built in 1971 when you could get a 1850sqft house built in 2015?

Submitted by AN on April 28, 2008 - 12:12pm.

DWCAP, The 5500 housing units in the canyon in south MM will all be multifamily units. You can go here for info. Read their meeting minutes. The 100+ house at the corner of Camino Santa Fe and calle Cristobal, is zoned as SFR for the South of Calle Cristobal and East of Camino Santa Fe corner. The north of Calle Cristobal is zoned as twin homes. This is the same for the South of Sorrento Valley Blvd and West of Camino Santa Fe.

I don't think the 92121 vs 92126 zip code matter as much as how new the house is and how big it is. It seems like people like the 92121 houses more because it's new and bigger and the area look cleaner. Both area goes to the same school, so, other than size & age, there's no real difference.

Submitted by ibjames on April 28, 2008 - 2:03pm.

I did some driving around also, and the thing I notied about the 92121 area is the lack of cars in the streets. In other areas it was crazy how many cars parked sometimes

Submitted by DWCAP on April 28, 2008 - 3:19pm.

From what I understood the "stoneview" area with 5500 multifamily units will only be the area .5 miles west of Camino Ruiz to Black Mountain. I have a feeling that does not include the area around Camino Santa Fe, which I am sure will get another name and more development. I still wonder about it all though, they said they have already killed some plans because of the proximity to both military and industrial sites and that they cannot meet liability issues. I wonder if more of those will come up as things go along.
5481 residental units on 300 acres is just over 18 units an acre, assuming no allowance for roads, parks, the proposed industrial space or even parking lots. Seems like really high density, but I dont really know how that all breaks down. Seems like a question for bugs or someone who knows how to compare this to other projects. Is that unbelievabliy high density or am I just reading to much into it?

the meeting minutes:
"A Planning Group subcommittee is reviewing a proposed new project named "Stone Creek," which is a future redevelopment plan for the 300 acre section of Carroll Canyon owned by Vulcan Materials Company. The site runs from about 1/2 mile west of Camino Ruiz to Black Mountain Road (see Aerial photograph showing location). The initial proposal was for 9800 multifamily residential units and 730,000 square feet of commercial and industrial space. A revised proposal containing 5481 multifamily residential units has been submitted to the City."

Submitted by NotCranky on April 28, 2008 - 3:34pm.

Here is a site that give some examples of how various density goals are met.

Submitted by rbeast on April 28, 2008 - 6:30pm.

call me curious - do these reflect sales that were made a few months prior to April & closed in April??

Submitted by courtneyacampbe... on April 28, 2008 - 6:41pm.

I'm interested in Del Sur and Santaluz areas of 92127? Any chance you could run the numbers on those for me when you get a chance?

Submitted by SD Realtor on April 28, 2008 - 10:18pm.

rbeast those numbers reflect close of escrow dates. A "sale" is considered close of escrow... at least in my book. So you figure the homes went into escrow in the March timeframe. Maybe a little earlier for a few of them.

SD Realtor

Submitted by SD Realtor on April 28, 2008 - 10:22pm.

92123 numbers

2008 4 solds 411,750 average
2007 13 solds 512,273 average

SD Realtor

Submitted by SD Realtor on April 28, 2008 - 10:28pm.

ilovecv the problem with checking for Del Sur and/or Santa Luz is that they are pretty small geographically. Also not all of the resale listings will be caught. In order for my net to grab them the listing agent MUST put either Santa Luz or Del Sur inside the Subdivision field when they enter the listing information. I ran my search on both of those subdivisions and it said 4 sales in Del Sur for 4/1-4/20 for 2007, 0 for Santa Luz in 07 and 0 for both Santa Luz and Del Sur for 2008.

Sorry about that. If you give me the geographical mapcodes, (Thomas brothers page row and column for each) then I can maybe get better numbers for ya.

SD Realtor

Submitted by ConejoOne on May 7, 2008 - 10:09pm.

This is a great website - has been so useful for years, even though I live in Conejo Valley not San Diego - any chance of getting stats on a zip up here, at 91360? thanks!

Submitted by ConejoOne on May 7, 2008 - 10:09pm.

This is a great website - has been so useful for years, even though I live in Conejo Valley not San Diego - any chance of getting stats on a zip up here, at 91360? thanks!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.