Although the real-estate bubblewatchers got a head start on the festivities some time last year, we have been waiting until there's a whole lot of data before we begin the "Woe is us!" chant over our monthly (fixed) mortgage statement. That data has all fallen into our laps in the last two days.
Zillow issued a report on how well the San Francisco Bay Area did, real estate sales-wise, for this year's second quarter. After filtering out extraneous "Z"s from all the jargon and checking out the report (warning! PDF!), here's what we learned: The median price for a family home in the San Franciso Bay Area is $726,607, while the median condo price is $528.783.
SFist Lisa, contributing
And if that weren't enough to make you cry, consider these data points:
- Although house prices appreciated 7.2% over the year-ago period, condo values gained a mere 3.4%.
- This growth still outpaces the rest of the U.S.: nationally, house prices appreciated 6%, while condo valued edged up only 2%.
- However, the median national house price is $268,531 and the median condo goes for $254.418.
There were some other fun factoids tucked into the report. For example, according to Zillow's data tracking, most of the neighborhoods in San Franciso saw teeny, tiny rises in price appreciation - if they saw anything - compared to the year-ago period. Most, we said - the lucky dogs in the Bayview and Financial districts grabbed double-digit price gains. However, if you're living in Presidio Heights, the Inner Sunset or Parkside districts ... well, you had the biggest losses from the year-ago. In this case "big" means "anywhere from 2.5-2.8% lower than this time in 2005."
Also, Zillow tracked how popular it is in certain zip codes, and all we have to say is, someone in 94563 has an awful lot of time on their hands.
Speaking of zip code data, if you are a real estate price geek (and indeed, how can you not be, living here?), we totally encourage you to check out DataQuick Real Estate News's "Chronicle Zip Code Chart," which runs monthly summaries of home sales activity by zip code. June 2006 is currently available. Those Zillow-stalking Orindans make more sense: their median prices are up 12.3%. To $1.207 million. You can see where every .207 counts.
ZipRealty - okay, what is it with the Z thing and real estate research? -- tracked 18 metro areas in the U.S. to see what percentage of houses up for sale had cut their listing price.
The good news: the San Francisco Bay Area ranked 17th out of the 18 metro areas. The bad news: about 28% of houses on the market have recently reduced their listing price. (See today's Wall Street Journal article here: "Going, Going, Gone ...")
Frankly, we're just taking comfort in knowing that it could be worse. In Sacramento, 42.5% of would-be sellers have sliced prices; in the O.C., 42% of sellers have reduced prices; in San Diego, 41% of sellers have cut prices; and in Los Angeles, nearly 35% of sellers have pared the asking price of their house.
So compared to the rest of California, we're not doing too badly. Yet. We're also not doing too badly compared to the rest of the country: according to ACORN, we don't even crack the top ten list of cities most likely to reel after all those adjustable-rate mortgages get adjusted for higher interest rates.
In the end, what does all this data mean? Darned if we know. On the one hand, we know it's dang near impossible to buy a house here -- that's why rents are rising. On the other hand, it's not like people have stopped buying. We're calling it a slowdown, and considering ourselves lucky that it's not so slow as it could be.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
What's with the unquestioning "prices falling equals bad" perspective here? Why is it "good news" that prices continue to rise inexplicably? Why is everyone "lucky dogs" if prices go through the roof in their neighborhoods? What about those of us who (shudder) don't own real estate?!? I'm sure you don't have any friends who are renters but, you know, use your imagination. Are any of us supposed to feel sympathy for you people who had $100K for a down payment and now might not be making more than our salaries in price appreciation alone? Cry me a freakin' river. Maybe the rest of us might actually like to see crappy studios at the Beacon head below $550K so those of us without a nice six-figure gift from mom & dad could actually consider buying something in this town. What's next, a post about rising rates at the country club?
Wow, that's a lot of anger! First off:
"I'm sure you don't have any friends who are renters"
Then you're sure of something that is absolutely wrong. Also, your allegations in re: size of down payment and provenance thereof are woefully off-the-mark.
However, full points awarded for hyperbole-filled stereotyping!
In case you're interested, here's why price appreciation is generally a good thing when it comes to real estate: because it reflects demand. Demand is usually a signifier of a healthy economy -- people working, who have money in their pockets and want to spend that dough on goods and services.
Why wouldn't an economic uptick be good for the Bayview area in the long run? A higher tax base = more money to be earmarked toward municipal services, plus more incentive for businesses to come in, thereby creating a more competitive environment. This is a good thing for consumers -- they're no longer held hostage to the one corner shop that charges usurious prices for wilted produce.
There was nothing in the initial post that said Bay Area real estate was cheap, and plenty to acknowledge that buying a house was tough in the area. But what you apparently missed in the post was the good news, i.e. we haven't seen the huge price deflations that bedevil other regions, so we're likely to retain what economic health we have instead of watching the region implode.
Everything I’ve read recently about SF being spared the deflation that has hit the rest of California has been written from the from a gloating real estate speculator’s perspective. While the idea that “demand is usually a signifier of a healthy economy”, is a fantastic guilt-relieving myth that the super-rich love to tell themselves when thoughts about the poor people they’re displacing enter their heads, it, like so many other economic indicators contrived by liberal economists, reflects only the upbeat side of the equation while conveniently leaving out the misery on the other end (as in how a GNP is considered “healthy” when more people are dying of terminal diseases because “demand” for medical services rises).
Real estate woes keep the vast majority of people in SF renting (65%). Those who can afford to buy (but barely) work longer hours, spend more time away from friends and family, and have a generally reduced quality of life because so much of their moderate income is spent simply trying to survive in this “healthy” economy that the ultra-rich have thrust upon the city’s long-time residents.
If SF is so “healthy”, where are the creative socio-cultural storms we saw here in the 60s and 70s? The greatest things SF has produced had little to do with a “healthy” economy and in fact flourished most when its economy was bad (from Lisa‘s perspective). The Haight, which is today championed for its “funkiness” acquired its reputation when most of its storefronts were boarded up (when experimental kids, musicians, artists , and refugees from the straight world of consumerism and 50 hour work weeks could afford to actually live there. Today, colonized by the well-to-do, there is nothing to do on Haight street but purchase “funky” commodities from upscale shops or buy 70 dollar used dresses. How “healthy”!) The same goes for the Castro and Polk areas. In the 70s a poor, oppressed gay kid could run away from Tulsa, come to SF, get a job busing tables 25 hours a week, meet people who didn’t hate him/her, and explore a whole universe of possibilities that weren’t accessible back home. The fact that SF is a “mecca” for gay culture is tightly linked to the shitty economy of the 1970s Castro.
That’s the other side of the equation your stupid-ass “healthy economy” ignores: the opportunities and possibilities that high-priced real estate and rents have destroyed for a sensitive young working-class person from some heartland hellhole who can no longer even imagine living in this city (even if she/he wanted to now that its a homogenized suburb of “design” goons who think they’re so creative and cultured eating crepes and spending their evenings watching dull indie rock bands peopled by 32-year old professionals (but hey, they have tattoos and shop at Thrift Town) playing the same type of music they were playing in ’96. Where is the cultural newblood? All settling in Oakland or LA. Why? Cause the economy is so “healthy” in SF.