Open House: Culver City
We popped into five Open Houses today in Culver City, where we heard two very bullish accounts of the local market. Rachelle Rosten of Colwell Banker told us, "Good houses, priced well, sell. And there are still a lot of buyers out there."
Bruce Forman, also of Coldwell Banker, told us, "The Culver City market is accelerating in terms of prices. What we're dealing with is a supply and demand issue. The people who ordinarily would be leaving Culver City for better neighborhoods aren't leaving because the neighborhood is getting better."
4235 Keystone Ave. 90232 (pictured): Very pretty but small (998 SF) 2 bedroom 1 bath, lots of sunlight, spacious yard with patio. On the market two days, $749,000. Sales history from Zillow.com: sold 11/97 for $251,500.
4212 Vinton Ave. 90232: Built in 1939, 2 bedroom 1 3/4 bath, 1229 SF home, hardwood floors, "lots of potential" per MLS description, which means it has not been renovated. Designed by Helen Young, female builder known for custom touches and solid construction. Listed in late May at $855,000, sellers are sticking with their number.
4390 Elenda St., 90230: 3 bedroom, 1 bath, 1133 SF, livable but needs work. Small back yard is all dirt. Elderly owners died, home being sold in trust sale. $719,000, sealed bids due by Aug. 27 at 5 pm.
10812 Braddock Dr., 90230: 4 bedroom, 2 bath, 1783 SF on 5100 SF lot; big house for the neighborhood, but back yard is small. On market 51 days, originally listed at $949,000, reduced to $899,000. Recent sale info from Zillow.com: Sold 5/02 for $447,000.
4128 Lincoln Ave., 90232: Newly built 3 bedroom, 3 1/2 bath townhouse, 2200 SF, huge gourmet kitchen, sweeping staircase, 3-car garage. $1.079 million.



Unless this is testimony in Gen. Petraeus' report on housing price stability, I'll be a life-long renter... or as long as I live in LA.
Posted by: LA renter | August 26, 2007 at 10:15 PM
Peter,
Zillow's information, sometimes, is not up to date. The property at 4235 Keystone in Culver City was sold in 2001 for $407K, according to propertyshark.
Posted by: J.White | August 26, 2007 at 11:58 PM
"Good houses, priced well, sell."Rachelle Rosten of Colwell Banker said.
LOL, do they even listen to the stuff they say anymore? $500 to 750 dollars a square foot for Culver City? In fact, I think the Zillow Recent sale prices are FAR closer to the real value, than the artificially inflated new one.
Posted by: Toby | August 27, 2007 at 12:03 AM
Peter,
Would be great if you could give a follow-up in a few months to let us know if and how much these sold and what they had to do to sell it. It is a great cross-section of properties and surprising 'bull-market" statements by sellers given it's the last week of August.
MLS
Posted by: Mike S | August 27, 2007 at 05:27 AM
Wow! The price of homes there is absolutely amazing. A person selling a home there could buy a great deal more for their money here in my area of Paris Texas and still have money left over to put in a CD and draw interest. Of course, they would have to put up with all the down side issues of living here that many bloggers are so good at articulating. On the other hand some people like it here. But I grew up in Glendale and have lived in Santa Monica and also love California. If I was wealthy enough, I would subscribe to net jets and would have homes all over the place. One place I'd like to have a home would be downtown Los Angeles. It sounds like that is starting to turn into a great place to live. Does Clifton's cafeteria still exist? It was a great place to eat.
Posted by: John T Watts | August 27, 2007 at 05:27 AM
The "good houses priced well" phrase is true. The only problem with that is that the "priced well" is below the price that most of the local realtors list their homes. The prices will be coming down once they realize that the lenders are limited. It use to be what rate a lender would charge to do a transaction. Now it is the question; Is there a loan available that can be offered to the new perspective buyer. The Realtors have to write contracts that their lender is able to close on.
Posted by: Patrick Goeglein | August 27, 2007 at 06:14 AM
I was born in Westchester, near Culver City, and left SoCal 15 years ago. All I can say why would anyone in their right mind buy these dumps for this kind of money. I my self would never go back to LA, it is not the price of RE, it is simply quality of life.
Posted by: Sam | August 27, 2007 at 06:45 AM
The median income for a single California wage earner is about the same as the national average, around $43,000, so even an average California couple can't afford these houses (and given the descriptions, should be given mental health counseling for even trying). It's impossible for median incomes to be so out of line with prices everywhere in the state, this is simply the wrong neighborhood for the average buyer to be looking. And any upper-middle class buyer who pays these kind of prices for these dinky houses rather than buying a summer home in the Yucatan and banking the cash is a fool. The key to getting the housing market under control is to STOP OVERPAYING. The sellers must obey the market eventually...
Posted by: Rich | August 27, 2007 at 07:34 AM
Just wanted to mention that while Culver City is nice, it's not necessarily the safest area in town. I live on Duquesne Ave, just a block and a half from the Police station here, and someone was shot and killed just out front our place a few weekends ago. The cop said that someone came down from Hawthorne looking for a fight.
There have also been a few people who have been approached by guys with guns in recent years while driving down Ince, near the Culver Studios.
Downtown Culver City is really nice and doesn't feel like the rest of LA to me, but I think Culver's proximity to some rougher areas of LA leads to a lot of spillover crime.
Posted by: Duquesne | August 27, 2007 at 07:48 AM
Culver City was intended to be a somewhat exclusive area from the outset. This is especially so for the area in the hills along Overland after Jefferson before it curves and turns back into Jefferson. As a matter of fact, I’m tempted to say that Culver City will be viewed something like Santa Monica, but without the beaches. The 3rd Street Promenade will likely be put up against The Bridge, etc... Point is, it is a very good neighborhood with a decent school system and quite a bit of diversity. I know this first hand because I've lived there the majority of my life. However, what your paying for to live in these homes at this point is just wasteful. The area will assuredly always be higher-end living, but not that high! My suggestion would be for people to just wait it out if they cant afford a home now; if people save their money, when this situation lightens up 6 months, 9 months, 1-year from now, they will be in prime position.
Posted by: cdgreen1984@aol.com | August 27, 2007 at 09:53 AM
It would be helpful if you included links to zillow or redfin, etc.
Posted by: Anon | August 27, 2007 at 10:03 AM
'The "good houses priced well" phrase is true. The only problem with that is that the "priced well" is below the price that most of the local realtors list their homes.'
Realtors do not pick the price the home sells for. The owner of the house decides what price to sell the house for. Usually they do it by getting bad information about what houses sell for in their neighborhood. They hear that a neighbor is selling their house for $700k and assume that their house is worth $800k because it must be nicer. Then they interview realtors until they find one that agrees. Realtors would rather have a house that is priced to sell so they get a quick commission. Every day that a house sits on the market, the realtor has to market and advertise it. All of that money comes out of their pocket.
Posted by: Ace | August 27, 2007 at 11:06 AM
To all posters from out of state:
Ok people, for the last time: WE STAY IN LA AND PAY THESE OUTRAGEOUS PRICES BECAUSE THIS IS WHERE OUR JOBS ARE.
We know that the same $ would buy us a mansion on a lake with an 8-car garage in Texas/Arkansas/Carolina etc. And believe me, we know these prices are crazy, but some of us have jobs that won't travel, so here we are.
So we either pay up and buy, or rent and save in the knowledge (hope?) that one day sanity will return to this market.
Posted by: Eurotrash | August 27, 2007 at 12:13 PM
THANK YOU EUROTRASH!
The RE prices in BOTH our communities are a DIRECT result of the job market. If I can work there, I can live there. If I can live there I can buy there. Get it?
Posted by: xtine | August 27, 2007 at 01:23 PM
'To all posters from out of state:'
Why do people from out of state even read this blog? I guess that people bragging about their cheap houses secretly want to move to LA and spend their time reading the LA Times.
Does anyone in LA read about the housing markets in bum-frick Idaho?
Posted by: Ace | August 27, 2007 at 01:50 PM
"'To all posters from out of state:'Why do people from out of state even read this blog? I guess that people bragging about their cheap houses secretly want to move to LA and spend their time reading the LA Times.
Does anyone in LA read about the housing markets in bum-frick Idaho?"
Believe it or not, the LA Times is a newspaper/webnews page of national stature, like the New York Times and Washington Post, and like those esteemed publications you don't get to show off your ignorance to just the local audience. Many of us live in markets whose housing prices have been artificially inflated because of tricky mortgage products, dishonest practices, and buyer behavior put into play in your California markets, so you guys are under the microscope and many of your fellow citizens from "bum-frick Idaho" would like to see how you're handling this and why you allow it to happen. Your contempt for the rest of us is pretty charming, but most of the places you're denigrating have higher standards of living than LA boulevard life in rotting 1930's bungalows, and we have jobs, too. I loved LA when I visited there 5 years ago but don't think for a minute that life in New England or Maryland or the coastal Carolinas would be any less satisfying. Time for some folks to do some travelling and get a feel for the rest of the country...
Posted by: Rich | August 27, 2007 at 03:46 PM
"Why do people from out of state even read this blog? "
I read these blogs due to morbid curiosity and historical interest. The meltdown of the unsustainable housing bubble in Southern California is a chance to observe a once in a lifetime event as it unfolds. It is amazing that otherwise intelligent people, would buy into this classic inflated resource bubble.
This event will become a classic economics case study in future textbooks.
Posted by: Carolina | August 27, 2007 at 04:25 PM
Then change jobs. A JOB is tempory and short lived, especially now days. A house can last forever and normally gets better every year. If you want to sta in LA, stay. In my opinion there so many better places to live then in CA, where RE is almost free in comparison and you won't get killed
Posted by: Sam | August 27, 2007 at 04:30 PM
Jobs are temporary but careers are not.
Some of us work in the movie industry or in the automotive industry to name two. Both of those industries are either nonexistent in other places, or declining in other parts of the country (automotive).
I may not be able to buy here on the salary paid by my movie industry job, but I would not have that job if I moved to another state.
Besides, rent is cheap in LA. Most of us only pay 10-15% of our income to rent a nice place that would cost us 1/2 or more of our income to buy. Nothing wrong with that!
Posted by: eprobert | August 27, 2007 at 07:19 PM
Is there a reason why people are acting as if this pricing situation is the real issue? The REAL issue is the availability of any financing....
And another thing to sit on...
This is happening in every state that there are mortgage companies... So CA is not the only place experiencing difficulty in the housing market.
Aside from that, I had always believed this pricing to be relative, just as the salaries are in comparison to where we all live? My understanding of economics is that housing prices have been relative to income since each respective states’ market first developed, and still follows along that course relative to inflation and other such things? If anyone can verify this for me I’d appreciate it, I’d hate to have such misinformation.
Posted by: cdgreen1984@aol.com | August 27, 2007 at 07:32 PM
All of the houses you noted are listed but which have sold ? Just based on the increase in interest rates for jumbos in the past month the cost of financing these homes makes the monthly payment 15% higher. So just to stay even the price has to drop by 15%,
Then eliminate from the prospective buyer pool anyone who doesn't have $200k or so ready for down payment and a very high fico score.
then tell me how these homes will sell for $800k in culver city
these folks are dreaming
as for realtors i never met one who didn't think it was a great time to buy ...unless of course he is trying to get your listing in which case it's a great time to sell
Posted by: Lawrence Weinman | August 27, 2007 at 09:03 PM
John T Watts - You are correct about Downtown Los Angeles. It has become gentrified and therefore totally unaffordable like the rest of Southern California.
The gentrification does make the place look really nice though. Living in a loft has become the "in" thing to do now if you have an extra $600-$700k laying around. So many people are able to walk to work and enjoy an evergrowing nighlife.
The homeless have been replaced by construction crews... and yes, Cliftons Cafeteria is still there!
Posted by: JK | August 27, 2007 at 10:52 PM
I'm an out - of - stater, moving to LA in December. And while I am happy to move (back) to LA, it isn't like we have much of a choice. My wife and I apply for every job in the western world in our field (openings for academics are rare), and wherever you get an offer, well, you go there. Some people get Oklahoma, others get LA.
My point is this: We know land is cheaper elsewhere, and that many aspects of the QOL are higher in Texas/Arkansas/etc. People who live in LA are not idiots (nor are people who move there, thank you very much). We all have some reason to be there. Let's just assume from now on that everyone in LA knows that they "should move elsewhere", but for whatever reason, CANNOT DO SO. It's not something to discuss, and if you are new to LA Land, don't think you are the first person to suggest it.
Moving away from LA is not a "solution" to our personal housing woes. So let's discuss LA land in that context. Please?
Pete- I know you want free speech, but maybe a few rules are in order, such as "no racist rants", and "no moveaway comments".
As for Culver City, my wife and I thought it was adorable when we visited a few weeks ago . . . so what's this I hear about spillover crime?
Posted by: Dr. JwB | August 28, 2007 at 01:43 AM
Carolina says:
"The meltdown of the unsustainable housing bubble in Southern California is a chance to observe a once in a lifetime event as it unfolds."
I hafta agree. It's like watching Mt.Saint Helen's lava dome grow.
You know it's gonna blow, but how bad will the destruction be.
Billions in equity "up in smoke".....
Posted by: smokey | August 28, 2007 at 11:20 AM
To all of the posters that have left CA for better environs. I'm an L.A. native and would love to stay here, but I just can't see myself being a renter for the rest of my life and have been thinking about splitting town to either Portland, OR, Seattle, WA, Vancouver, BC, Austin, TX, Nashville, TN--even Rosarito, MX. I love CA soo much, but am also envious of other CA natives who have decided to make the move to other states. I've researched QOL issues and can honestly say L.A. isn't all that anymore. Any advice for this scairdy cat whose afraid to make the big jump to other environs?
Posted by: Scairdy Cat | August 28, 2007 at 08:25 PM