Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Preliminary December Sales Stats

The early numbers are in for December. Nothing real surprising or noteworthy unfortunately. The spreadsheet below shows the numbers for December, as well as the last two years of data. I did run some Dec 06 v. Dec 07 numbers for fun. Take a look:

Avg Sales Price
Dec 06 - $417,637
Dec 07 - $350,718

Med Sales Price
Dec 06 - $373,750
Dec 07 - $309,000

Avg $/SF
Dec 06 - $232
Dec 07 - $184

Med $/SF
Dec 06 - $223
Dec 07 - $175

Avg SF
Dec 06 - 1851
Dec 07 - 1879

Med SF
Dec 06 - 1670
Dec 07 - 1675

I'm working on some year v. year stats that should be finished shortly.


Buying Time said...

Thanks AB, I was wondering what the average square footage of houses were. To see if my basic requirements were really that extravagant.....(although I do admit, the average home size has undoubtedly grown over the years).

AgentBubble said...

It has, just as the buying mentality has. I remember our family of 4 buying our first house of 1100 sf. Now we have families of 2 that won't settle on anything less than 3000. The sad thing is the lot sizes have become smaller, not bigger.

Anonymous said...

Thanks AB. The giant oversize house thing is similar to the whole exurban thing, horribly wasteful and energy inefficient. In an era of peak oil, these things make absolutely no sense, and we've now moved beyond a purely political discussion to one of economics and hardship. Soon, there will be whole communities that basically turn into ghost towns as they are inviable from a work center proximity perspective. Huge houses with giant vaulted ceilings that house 2 people are also inviable.

What I find fascinating is that the only kind of housing that will be in demand will be for smaller, more energy-efficient structures, preferable with a large lot that you can grow fruits, vegetables, and chickens on, and a lot of these grotesque McMansion developments will be nothing more than deserted subdivisions where homeless and drug addicts squat and where criminals can go "underground" and off the grid.

Ironically, as we move closer to 2010, boomers will start retiring in large numbers and many will try to offload the larger primary residence in favor of something more manageable and cheaper to heat/maintain. This will further depress the large house market. IMHO, the giant house phenomena will be viewed as a passing fad, a testament to a more wasteful period when we somehow thought that the entire economy could be nothing more than people flipping houses back and forth to each other.

anon1137, continuing on in our discussion from the past thread, you are right in a way, this isn't a "credit crunch" per se, it's more of a credit collapse. I guess those two things are different. And by the way, the interest rates that banks charge each other have been moving up rapidly, so this supports your comments as well.

Unknown said...

What I find fascinating is that the only kind of housing that will be in demand will be for smaller, more energy-efficient structures, preferable with a large lot that you can grow fruits, vegetables, and chickens on

When I read comments like yours, I really have to wonder if you are trying to be outrageous to get people to read your ramblings or if you are truly that delusional. I think people will embrace liquefied coal and $5 gas rather than having the majority of Americans become chicken farmers. I realize that you are a fresh out of college 20 something that thinks they know everything, but you will mature in time and look back at your previous comments and laugh. People have been predicting the end of the world as we know if from the beginning of time, you are just the latest to be wrong.

Anonymous said...

real, thanks for the laugh man, you are one funny dude! LOL!

Perfect Storm said...

What I find fascinating is that the only kind of housing that will be in demand will be for smaller, more energy-efficient structures, preferable with a large lot that you can grow fruits, vegetables, and chickens on,

Isn't this Rio Linda, I totally agree with you, fossils fuels are going to drive people to energy efficency and that means smaller homes.

Were right on track for a 50% decline by 2009.

Gwynster said...

My max house size is 2000 sqft. 1600 sqft would be perfect. I just don't get the need for stuff.

What I do want is a sizable lot, for exactly the reasons Darth mentioned. I happen to love vegetable gardening. Hard to beat tomatoes right out of your own backyard.

AgentBubble said...

You got that right gwynster! Until you've eaten vegetables from your own garden, you have no idea what you're missing. I'm shopping with some clients in Elk Grove right now (trust me, I've told them their house will be worth less in 6 months), and we've seen some houses with a backyard less than 10 feet in depth. Very very sad.

Gwynster said...

Agent, The reductions in West Sac are really staggering. It's almost tempting if it weren't for those pesky HOAs.

Elk Grove/Laguna is my worst nightmare because I have been suck on the 5 and 99 during traffic hours. I'd rather have a root canal daily - and I'm from LA originally! I hope your clients know what they are getting into.

Perfect Storm said...

Hey Gwynster,

Is UCD in the need of new physics PHD's to teach in a couple of years?

Gwynster said...

Not sure as I'm not in the college of engineering. That said, we have faculty retiring en mass starting now.

Start here -

Gwynster said...

I should have mentioned, there was a stop on faculty hiring in Feb of last year. We've hired 1 and 3 have retired since then. We anticipate all hiring will stop very very shortly.

smf said...

"My max house size is 2000 sqft. 1600 sqft would be perfect"

Yes, I remember going into our 2200sq.ft. home and thinking that we could never need anything larger...but sometimes you do!

We are looking for a house that will give us at least 4 bedrooms plus an office. If we can get a bonus room (with three kids and plenty of my toys we could use it) that would be even better.

Even our in-laws 3600 sq.ft. home no longer seems that big.

But to each their own.

To upkeep a house that size takes $$$.

And since they overbuilt large homes, we should have the pick of the litter sometime soon.

BTW, if the house doesn't come with a large lot, forget about it.

Perfect Storm said...

Thanks You Gwynster

Gwynster said...


We don't have kids so a 3/2 is plenty; master br, office, and studio. My idea of spreading out is 8 x 6 canvas - about the size of Pollock's One.

Anonymous said...

smf, don't get me wrong. I don't have an inherently negative bias against large houses, per se.

In the past, very large houses were an oddity, and were typically reserved for only those that were very wealthy or those with very large families, and they almost always had large lots or even acreage.

Recently, with the housing bubble, all of that has changed. Now we have large tracts of monster oversize houses on postage stamp lots, all paid for with little or no money down. The folks that lived there, by and large, want to think of themselves as wealthy, but the reality is, they are actually middle class at best and really have no actual money. This is how the term "McMansion" was born.

It is these neighborhoods which are an abomination and I believe they will turn into ghost towns for homeless and drug dealers. Folsom and El Dorado Hills are filled with such developments. Also, there will be no premium for a McMansion. They will be considered an absurdity from another time (sort of like gold shag carpets) and will actually cost less than more modest homes in more established areas with better lots. JMHO.

Genuinely wealthy folks that live in true mansions won't be affected by the RE bust. Also, there will still be a need for large homes by those with large families. Having said that, if you are considering purchasing a McMansion in a tract neighborhood, beware. What you get there may not be what it seems.

Anonymous said...

We are indeed neighbors.

Your stats look terrifyingly similar to what we've got.

Informative update.



smf said...

Darth, I am in complete agreement with everything you said. All we have to do is go back into recent memory and remember when a track home larger than 2500 sq.ft. was an oddity. And a home bigger than 3000 sq.ft. was typically considered to be a mansion.

Then you had construction of these McMansion track homes bigger than 3000 sq.ft. That is just a joke. Way too many were built. There are plenty of examples at hand.

We do happen to have the income level and the number of children required to purchase a larger home. But right away, any new development is off the table, as their future is cloudy to say the least.

And we have noticed that slowly but surely, more houses seem to be getting down to the 'affordable' level.

PeonInChief said...

Interesting that the stats show that the higher-priced houses are selling. As for the ghastly oversized drek that seems to be sprouting in house farms from Bakersfield to Redding, we can only hope that these houses really only have a life expectancy of 50 years. Then we can, without guilt, tear them down and start over again.

DH and I live in 1200 sqft, and have one room that seems to exist only to contain the file cabinet, the desk and a bookcase. But in looking at the floor plans for the tan to taupe offerings available, it struck me that people may be purchasing four bedrooms worth of storage space, rather than four bedrooms. We have more usable storage space in our two bedroom duplex than is found in the new offerings, and we really do need the closet in the second bedroom. And that's probably the main reason for the three-car garage--it's cheaper to tack on unfinished garage space than it is to design decent closet space and proper cabinets.