Fabulous 40s

Seeing the market over two decades

July 24, 2018 By Ryan Lundquist 17 Comments

Buckle up and let’s take a drive through the past 20 years. Where has the market been over these two decades? Since MLS recently made it much easier to extract older data, I had to do this post. I hope you find it useful or interesting – even if you aren’t in the Sacramento market.

SOME THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND:

1) Data: We are only as good as our data and our ability to understand. Some graphs below are very clear in their trends, but others probably aren’t meaningful because of massive data or an enormous price range.

2) Not back: Many lower-priced areas are not back to their price peak in 2005.

3) Back: Some well-established areas have exceeded previous peaks.

4) Different trends: Not all price ranges, locations, and property types have moved the same way, so let’s be cautious about sweeping generalizations about the entire market. After all, the condo market might be far different from the 2-4 unit market or vacant land.

5) Inflation: Prices might be similar today to where they were in 2005, but that doesn’t mean values are the same. I know, that’s so technical, but when we factor in inflation over 13 years, it’s really not the same thing when comparing today’s prices with prices from 13 years ago. Keep in mind the market today has far different dynamics from 2005 also.

6) Bubble: Graphs like this can often lead to conversations about a housing “bubble.” If it’s relevant, please read peak prices and an open letter to buyers worried about another housing bubble.

SIDE NOTE: I’ve been having major website issues over the past 2 months. I’ve switched hosts, and that should solve the problem of down time.

DOWNLOAD ALL GRAPHS: You can download all images as a zip file. I included both a web-friendly size and larger ones. Please use as you see fit (unaltered). If you post somewhere online I always appreciate a link back.

Rosemont:

River Park:

Meadowview:

Vacant Residential Land:

Million Dollar Sales:

Pocket / Greenhaven:

Rancho Cordova:

Sierra Oaks:

Loomis:

East Sacramento:

Duplex Sales:

Gold River:

Land Park:

Elk Grove:

Garden of the Gods:

Sales under $50K in Sacramento County:

Del Paso Manor:

Tahoe Park:

Fair Oaks:

Treelake / Ashley Woods (Granite Bay):

Condo Sales in Sacramento County (and Downtown):

Colonial Heights:

College Glen:

Davis:

West Sacramento:

Bella Vista High School Boundaries:

Arden Park:

Folsom:

Arden Manor:

95815 Zip Code:

4-Unit Sales in Sacramento County:

Roseville:

I hope this was interesting or even fascinating. I’m intrigued and excited about having more data at my disposal (thank you Metrolist). Thanks everyone for your graph suggestions too. I reached out on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn and got to most of what people asked for, though I couldn’t do them all.

Questions: What are your thoughts about the market after seeing the graphs above? I’d love to hear your take.

If you liked this post, subscribe by email (or RSS). Thanks for being here.

That place where fame & real estate meet

November 29, 2017 By Ryan Lundquist 12 Comments

How does fame impact a home? Does it matter for value if a famous person lived there? What if something notorious happened at the property? Let’s talk about this and consider a few examples. Please note there are entire books written on this subject, so don’t expect an exhaustive dissertation here. Any thoughts? I’d love to hear your take in the comments.

Here are a few examples:

Breaking Bad: The house where the TV series Breaking Bad was filmed was all over the news last month because the owner is building a 6′ front yard fence to keep people out of her yard. According to Albuquerque KOB4 there is a constant stream of visitors and fans have even thrown pizzas on the roof to reenact the main character Walter White doing so in an episode. The owner is clearly not thrilled, and I can’t imagine neighbors are either unless they can somehow monetize the situation.

Kurt Cobain’s Baby House: Brandon Turner at Bigger Pockets is an investor and he accidentally bought a home where Kurt Cobain lived as a baby. The duplex was purchased as an investment without any knowledge of the lead singer of Nirvana’s connection to the property. But tenants began complaining about photos being taken of the front of the house, and that’s how the connection was discovered.

The Almost Governor’s Mansion in California: The State of California built a Governor’s mansion in the 1970s in Carmichael, which is about 10 miles from Downtown Sacramento. This mansion began construction under Governor Ronald Reagan’s leadership, but it was not completed until Jerry Brown took office. Brown actually refused to live in this house, which he dubbed “The Taj Mahal”. This home sold for 4.1M in 2004 and has 8 bedrooms, 8 bathrooms and is 11,984 sq ft. The mansion is still there today, but some of the site has been subdivided for a few custom homes. This is literally one of a few residential homes EVER in Sacramento County that sold above $4M.

Reagan House in the Fab 40s Neighborhood: Governor Ronald Reagan and his family chose not to live in the old Governor’s mansion in Downtown Sacramento back in the 70s, so they moved to East Sacramento on 45th Street to lease a home in the “Fabulous 40s” neighborhood. The home boasted over 6,000 square feet with six bedrooms and four bathrooms (according to Tax Records). The home last recorded for $1,765,000 in May 2000. Not everyone can say, “The future President used to live here when he was Governor”. Do you think that matters for value?

Here’s a look at the price point of the Reagan house. What do you see?

Homicidal Handyman House: There is a property in Oak Park where a serial killer dubbed “The Homicidal Handyman” murdered someone in the later 80s. This property was purchased last year by an investor and I’m waiting to see if it comes on the market (it has a choice location). This murder occurred about 30 years ago though, and the reality is that stigma associated with gruesome crimes fades over time. In other words, it might be a big deal for value to buy a property right after a murder, but much less of an issue if the crime occurred 30 years ago. I observed a recent murder property in the Sacramento market and in this case there was a 5-10% hit on value, though it might not have been an issue at all had the murder taken place 30 years ago instead of recently. Architectural Digest actually did a great piece on stigma recently and I was pleased to see they interviewed Jonathan Miller.

Dorothea Puente Murder House: Seven bodies were discovered at a duplex on F St in Sacramento in the late 80s compliments of Dorothea Puente. She lured victims to her “boarding” home, drugged and buried them, and then cashed their social security checks. This Victorian duplex has some charm as you can see, but it definitely has a dark history too. There was a documentary made about this house in 2015 and the owner has even given tours through the years too. This just goes to show it may be possible to monetize a famous house. Though in this case the owner has donated tour proceeds toward organizations working to alleviate homelessness (way to go).

Here’s a sales history of the Puente duplex. What do you see?

Lady Bird House: A recent movie called Lady Bird is set in Sacramento and had some filming done in the city too. Here is the front of one of the home’s shown in the movie (located in Fab 40s). This was not the main character’s dwelling, so it may not attract much of a following, though it’ll be interesting to see if people snap selfies here. For reference, the San Francisco Chronicle shared Lady Bird filming locations so fans can visit. In this case the owner probably has some bragging rights to say, “My home was in Lady Bird”, and I’d imagine any future listing would mention this fact. But will the market as a whole pay more for a house like this because it had a minor role in a movie? I’ll give you my opinion in the comments if you give me yours.

And here’s my Lady Bird selfie. 🙂

Closing thoughts: It seems like fame can either be good or bad when it comes to real estate values. If a house is famous for something gruesome, it could easily harm value (duh). But part of it depends on how long ago a crime occurred. On the other hand if a home is historically important, it could be a huge bonus for value (duh again). Yet fame can come at a cost too by increasing foot traffic and looky-loos. Would an owner have to disclose the stream of unwanted visitors to potential buyers? Could this potentially limit marketability? Could it impact rental value if there were camera flashes happening at night? Would tenants get fed up over time? These are important questions to ask. Lastly, we would be wise to not overthink a property’s value that had “15 minutes of fame” so to speak. Thus just because a home had a cameo in a movie or was previously owned by someone famous does not mean at the end of the day the market is going to pay anything more for the property. It’s true certain fans might offer more for a particular home owned by a celebrity or athlete, but what would the market as a whole pay? That’s always the bigger question.

Think Like an Appraiser Class (I’m teaching): By the way, I’m doing my favorite class on Dec 7 from 9am-12pm called How to Think Like an Appraiser. We’ll talk through comp selection, making adjustments, tips for talking about value, and what to do in various scenarios. Details here.

Questions: Would you buy a house that was famous in a movie or owned by someone famous? Why or why not? Have you seen any measurable impact to value for a celebrity property? I’d love to hear your take.

If you liked this post, subscribe by email (or RSS). Thanks for being here.

The scoop on the value of neighborhood trees

August 10, 2011 By Ryan Lundquist 4 Comments

I read a short article last week entitled “City Trees and Property Values” (pdf) by Dr. Kathleen L. Wolf after hearing a representative from the SacTree Foundation speak at a Realtor event. Dr. Wolf’s research shows that trees generally increase property value. Her study indicated a 2% price increase for a property with a mature tree (greater than 9 inches thick), 3-5% increase for trees in the front yard, and 10-15% increase for mature trees in high-income neighborhoods.

While initially some of her stats seem startling, I do think she is right that trees add to the overall value of a property. This doesn’t mean a house is automatically worth 2 or 9% more due to having the tree set-up she mentioned, but trees generally do yield a value contribution. In an objective sense, trees add worth due to boosting energy efficiency due to shade, while there is also a subjective element where they tend to increase curb appeal among buyers. It’s hard to ignore that some of the most highly priced and sought-after streets in the Sacramento area are lined with enormous trees. Think the Fabulous 40s, Curtis Park, Land Park or Arden Park to name just a few. Granted, these streets typically have very large and well-maintained houses too, but there is no mistaking that a canopy of mature trees stretching along a particular street tends to give a very positive impression to buyers in the market for that street in comparison to others. Agree? Disagree?

Here is a video of Jacobe Caditz with the Sacramento Tree Foundation speaking about the benefit of trees last week at the Sacramento Association of Realtors.

What do you think? How have you seen trees or a lack of trees impact real estate value? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

If you have any questions, or real estate appraisal or property tax appeal needs in the Greater Sacramento Region, contact Lundquist Appraisal by phone 916-595-3735, email, Facebook or subscribe to posts by email.

Fabulous 40s

Share:

Share:

Share: