Thursday, June 19, 2008

"Charming starter home"

You know I usually take my own photos to better reveal a property. But this MLS photo for the 2 bed / 1 bath house at 1053 17th Street, second block north of Wilshire, is such a counterpoint to the "charming starter home" description. Such charm that you've always dreamed of owning in its inviting front porch and original Spanish stucco facade, for a mere $1.3M.

Or it's an as-is tear-down for a new home. Or for 3 condos. Whatever, seller wants out. But not enough to reduce the price since listing in January.

"Charming starter home in fantastic north of wilshire location and in the franklin elementary school district. Preliminary plans included for contemporary new home. Sold "as is". Zoned r2 - can build 3 units on property (please confirm with the city). Tenant occupied. Please do not disturb tenants."

Be sure to see SM Distress Monitor last January for more about this property and its owner/agent/builder/seller.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

So they want $1.3 million for a teardown? Is that the price for an empty plot in 90403 now? I thought it was more like $900k, even at the height?

Anonymous said...

Keep in mind, the height passed along time ago.

The fact that we've now got sales at 25-30% above the height does not affect the fact that the height was months (even years) ago.

Anonymous said...

"Is that the price for an empty plot in 90403 now?"

No. That's the price for 1/2 of an empty lot. This is a partial parcel.

As long as people keep buying and supporting the comps at these levels things aren't going anywhere. Condos definitely seemed to peak last year, but SFR like this one... I don't know. The stagnant listings are WAY up, but sales comps are holding at insanely high levels.

It's very hard to do an apples to apples comparison In Santa Monica as there are so many variables (elementary schools, major thouroughfares, wildly variable lot sizes, 120 years of continuous development in architecture, views, proximity to the beach, and so on, even potential loan fraud in prior sales plays a role).

Meanwhile, in nearby tear down news... you can get a quarter lot with a 600 sq ft SFR tear down in 90404 for 699,999, or half a lot with 900 sq feet on it for 1,499,000...

All of which makes 1,300,000 for half a lot in 90403 look almost reasonable.

Anonymous said...

'The fact that we've now got sales at 25-30% above the height does not affect the fact that the height was months (even years) ago.'


Whaaaaa? Doesn't higher prices mean....well, higher prices? SFR prices ARE NOT DOWN in Santa Monica, as much as you all wish it was...

Josh Hamilton said...

"charming starter home" --- $1.3 million for a dilapidated house is surely a great way to start off.

Real estate agents are so silly!

Anonymous said...

"All of which makes 1,300,000 for half a lot in 90403 look almost reasonable."

You seem to know your stuff; what is a "full" lot in Santa Monica, say 90403 or 90404 in terms of square feet? Is it 7,500 square feet for a typical "full" lot?

Separately, what do you think a full empty lot goes for in 90403 these days? The concensus on the SM blog is that in 90402, which is more pricey, an empty full lot is7500 sf and it goes for $1.9 mil.

Westside Bubble said...

Low-end north of Montana prices did fall some 25% from 1990 to 2006. Here's a plot of them with the LA Case-Shiller index. I'll update it for the next C-S release.

Is Santa Monica that different this time, or just delayed in adjusting?

Anonymous said...

"what is a "full" lot in Santa Monica, say 90403 or 90404 in terms of square feet?"

Most of the city was zoned with lots between 8000 and 16,000 feet. They were largely subdivided in the 1940s-1970s, when there was a big push toward suburbanization on the west side. The SMPL branch on Santa Monica and 5th has an archive that focusses on the history of the city... zoning maps can be fascinating reading.

Epsilon said...

Is 90403 ultimately going to be nothing but condos and apartments? I'm trying to figure out who the target buyer would be for a property like this. Maybe a wealthy, older, empty nest coast couple trying to retire near the beach? Would they want something so dilapidated?

It's hard to imagine many buyers for a $1.3 million starter home that will be too small for anything but infants... and the lot is too small for anyone to tear it down and build a dream home...

Anonymous said...

My bet is this goes to a developer who will be forced to build high-end units to clear any profit since only 3 units can be created. And yes, I fully expect the bulk of 90403 to be condos (most of it already is), precisely because the economics don't support people buying this house as-is to live in and no one is going to buy that lot to build an SFR when it's sandwiched between other townhouse buildings.

Anonymous said...

can this pencil out

if i am a developer and i buy this for 1.3 and i build three condos what can i sell them for and what is my profit

help me understand

Anonymous said...

"if i am a developer and i buy this for 1.3 and i build three condos what can i sell them for and what is my profit"

It'd be a huge gamble... but if you went with high end luxury townhouses, you could clear as much as 1.75 each with the wind at your back.

Profit would be entirely contingent on the experience of your crew when it came to developing luxury units. It'd take a pretty seasoned team to see much more than high six figures.

Of course, that was the sort of thinking that drove the market up in the first place. Developing condos is many times riskier than a high end SFR flip... you've got to get X number of people to buy X number of units for the math to work out for you.

Anonymous said...

ok so land in the 90402 is cheaper than in the 90402 right now

this is a half lot for 1.3 so full lot is implied to be vicinity of 2.6

but full lots in the 90402 are 2.1

that sounds so wrong

Anonymous said...

It's a price of entry thing... 90404 lots are subdivided more radically, and (even as smaller lots) they're more development friendly.

As a result, per square foot, 90404 has tended to track 90402 almost exactly. That's because 90404 makes better development sense with its R2 zoning.

If you're looking to LIVE in the SFR you buy, 90402 is a much better idea... if you're a developer or speculator, 90404 makes more sense.

In the end, though, 90404 lot values and 90402 lot values are the absolute highest in the city, followed by 90403, then 90405 where lots are larger and the price of entry is more or less the same.

Your big money investment was to buy 90404 between 1997-2001, when a tear down could be had for $150,000... today the lot value (a 6000+ sq foot lot, with alley access) would be somewhere around 1.5.

WarChestSM said...

Wow...lots of speculation, etc here.

The real story of this unit is that a developer (who has his real estate license and owns his own development firm) bought this and a house on the 1000 block of 25th just a few weeks apart. Both are tear down type places.

This house here is in an area which is zoned for multiple units. You don't buy this for it to be a "starter home". A buyer here would be a developer. The problem is that you won't be able to build high end units and easily sell them for over $1M like you used to be able to do. That means the land price needs to come down for the economics to work. That is why this has sat on the market for so long.

The house that this developer owns on 25th has "plans" along with it. It has also been for sale forever with no price cuts. This guy was likely going to do a major remodel or rebuild on 25th and then try to sell. But the market turned and he is trying to back out now...The house on 25th also has been for rent from time to time and currently has a westside rentals sign outside. I saw it on Craigslist for $4,500/month which is still a little high. He repainted the exterior and put some cheap landscaping in - also put tiles on the front porch.

Point is that both of these places are cases of the same developer bailing. Good luck...No bids in over a year on market means overpriced!

Anonymous said...

Reality check: the reason no "developer" is going to buy this in 2008 at any price is because you cannot get a construction loan on any terms today from any bank.

And if you ran the numbers buying this all cash for development, you come out with a land value in the very, very low 6 figures.

Distressed construction loans in other (less desireable) parts of LA are going for about 30-40 cents on the dollar, which is the result of too much inventory combined with needing to buy the deals all cash. No way this seller gets out anywhere near $1.3MM.

Anonymous said...

Believe me, if you find some discounted land in a good area that allows you to develop product at a solid discount to today's pricing then you will get your construction loan. The problem is that you would need to be able to offer homes for way (way way) less than $1.75mm. This pricing is not that far from reality (subject to my FAR guess).