191–200 of 209 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
South San Jose (Evergreen) and the East Bay would be within your reach most likely.
What are commute times like to where the jobs are from those (Cupertino, Palo Alto it seems)?
East bay to the valley is not possible for commute under 2 hours
Aside: I don't think it should be legal to not accept the asking price for a home. With any other thing I want to buy, if I agree to pay the list price I get the item. Sometimes I can haggle the price down but the listed price is always accepted. This system of listing a price to 'get people in the door' and then igniting a bidding war makes it impossible for anyone to shop for a house except for realtors who are 'in…
I am not saying we should simplify house buying to the same process as buying a cup of coffee.
I am saying that there is probably some price for which you're willing to forego negotiation and just sell it. This is like the ebay "Buy it Now" price. I think when most people list their house, they have this number in the back of the mind.
So let's start by putting that price out there. And maybe some basic conditions about how you'd like to be paid. If the perfect buyer comes along, you're done! This is currently not possible with our system. If the house is listed at $100k and I am willing to pay $150k I still start by offering asking to feel out the seller. If they had listed a "Buy it Now" price we could be done instantly.
Now let's say nobody wants to pay your buy it now price, they are free to make a lower offer. In the worst case, we get back to where we are now.
For all of the argument saying how hard it is to price a home and how nobody can get this number right because every home is unique, I don't think this is any harder than picking a list price in the current system. Most realtors pick the list price hoping to get x% more, depending on their market. Just include that x% in your "Buy it Now" price and be done with it.
Yes South Bay is so overpriced right now it’s ridiculous. Keep in mind that 5 years ago that same house would have sold for 650k and even then people would have been complaining that’s it was way overpriced. One things certain, east bay across the 84 is still under a million at the moment. I suspect that will change soon.
It think its just that some people get a lot of money through stock options that they spend this way.
In France, there's no such thing as paying over the ask price. You are forced to sell to the first buyer who offers to pay the ask price. I suspect that this is done to prevent prices from rising too quickly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think of Sweden as a country that lacks land. Population of Sweden is comparable to that of Bay Area but seriously. I imagine if you could just go and buy a home in "the next suburb by the road" really affordably, it would deflate prices for most desirable places too.
If you could just get plenty of cheap land in the suburb down the road someone would have built houses there 30 years ago. Sure there is land and there are plenty of places where you can buy a nice house for less than, say, $100k. However none of those places are within a one hour commute of where any jobs are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you could just get plenty of cheap land in the suburb down the road someone would have built houses there 30 years ago. Sure there is land and there are plenty of places where you can buy a nice house for less than, say, $100k. However none of those places are within a one hour commute of where any jobs are.
Well, I'm looking at map of Sweden near Stockholm and sure as hell I see a lot of place for building up. Glades with direct access to highway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I'm looking at map of Sweden near Stockholm and sure as hell I see a lot of place for building up. Glades with direct access to highway.
And you think that the reason they haven't built on that land is lack of cheap labor? Labor costs are simply not a factor when it comes to the economics of building houses in and around places like Stockholm.
They surely can overcome this unwillingness, can't they?
And then they actually have access to labor already. Makes things better for virtually anybody, excluding some rent-seekers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And you think that the reason they haven't built on that land is lack of cheap labor? Labor costs are simply not a factor when it comes to the economics of building houses in and around places like Stockholm.
I think that the reason they haven't build on that land is unwillingness to build on that land. They surely can overcome this unwillingness, can't they? And then they actually have access to labor already. Makes things better for virtually anybody, excluding some rent-seekers.
First of all it's not like they're not building in Stockholm. Secondly most of that 'unused' green land you're probably looking at is public parks and nature reserves. So it really boils down to a debate on the value of nature reserves vs more housing.
Makes things better for virtually anybody, excluding some rent-seekers.
and people who see a value in public parks and nature reserves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that the reason they haven't build on that land is unwillingness to build on that land. They surely can overcome this unwillingness, can't they? And then they actually have access to labor already. Makes things better for virtually anybody, excluding some rent-seekers.
They surely can overcome this unwillingness, can't they? First of all it's not like they're not building in Stockholm. Secondly most of that 'unused' green land you're probably looking at is public parks and nature reserves. So it really boils down to a debate on the value of nature reserves vs more housing. Makes things better for virtually anybody, excluding some rent-seekers. and people who see a value in public p…
There is no debate. You can always build up around a city. Housing prices bubble shows they're not building fast enough, by far.
Not building is a non-solution. It's not sustainable.