August 4, 2009
Garage Condo Apartment (Or Two): 1810-1812 Pacific Avenue
∙ $7200 / 3br - GORGEOUS New Construction 3-level Townhome [Criagslist]
∙ Add A Garage Condo (Or Two): 1810-1812 Pacific Avenue [SocketSite]
First Published: August 4, 2009 1:30 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
CL Ad states that "Lease to Own" options are available!
Posted by: eddy at August 4, 2009 3:09 PM
I can't believe this.
How did they manage to get permits to build not 1 but 2 condos in that garage space ???
Posted by: Topher at August 4, 2009 3:31 PM
$7200, huh? Such a deal!
Posted by: livinintheloin at August 4, 2009 4:17 PM
They wouldhave been better off with a SFH but may have needed to do condo's and multi units to get the permits.
Posted by: eddy at August 4, 2009 4:40 PM
I'm sure they'll be able to find several 550K+ renter households that would be more than happy to spend 25% of their disposable income to rent this beauty out for 7200 a month.
Posted by: Robert at August 4, 2009 5:05 PM
Nice place, nice work, but they spent too much money to build this; the sales price was too high, and now the rent is too high too.
Posted by: unwarrantedinlaw at August 4, 2009 6:46 PM
HAH! THey're going to get creamed, no way there getting anything over 4k for this, probably less. I live a block away and have seen both and they don't amount to much beyond high-end hallways with "peek-a-boo" i.e. inconsequential "bayviews".
Posted by: Ms. Piggy at August 4, 2009 7:43 PM
no way there getting anything over 4k for this
Suppose you were making 300K, and had a State+Federal tax rate of 35%, in which case 25% of your disposable income would cover 4K in rent. Would you really spend the 4K on rent? Or would you get something cheaper and save the rest?
As income goes up, people spend less and less on housing. So in reality, you would need someone earning closer to 400K to rent this place. The big exception is corporate rentals or temporary rentals. And I really think that's pretty much the whole market for rental housing that's priced 4K and up. That and tons of roommates pairing up, maybe each paying 1K per bedroom.
I'd be interested to hear if anyone on this board has actually rented a place for 4K or over that was not part of a 1K/bedroom roommate situation, corporate, or temporary rental -- and if so, why and for how long.
Posted by: Robert at August 4, 2009 9:51 PM
ok I'll come clean. we're currently renting a place in pac heights for around the same amount as this is listed for.
great location, 2500 SF, beautiful views, nice deck, the owner paid a little over $2 mil a few years ago.
so why are we renting? well I am working diligently on paying off a low-mid six figures in school loans so we don't have the downpayment on a similar place. and even if we did, I'm not sure in this market whether I want to sink $400k into a property where my dollars are the first ones at risk. not right now anyway.
even with the mortgage deduction, if we bought a place like this we'd be paying more (there are hoa dues as well) so at this point I don't see a huge upside to buying.
to answer the income question indirectly, I'm currently spending a little less than 25% of my post-tax income on housing.
Posted by: fancy rental at August 5, 2009 7:16 AM
Lots of people in PH pay in excess of 4k for rentals. There is a huge gap, however, between the number of people that are willing to do so, and the number of units for rent in this range. Lots of units sit forever unrented. On occasion a more accurate rental comes on the market and it's snapped up quickly.
Posted by: eddy at August 5, 2009 8:21 AM
"if we bought a place like this we'd be paying more "
Another form of the old line of "you can never own where you could rent."
Posted by: Toady at August 5, 2009 12:21 PM
$8k/ Month for the other unit.
Posted by: eddy at August 5, 2009 3:55 PM
A little OT, but the Victorian to the left in the picture has an absolutely magnificent paint job. I walked by it the other day.
Posted by: Lori at August 5, 2009 4:21 PM
Isn't this place completely unattractive from the outside?
Posted by: John at August 5, 2009 10:22 PM
Robert, did you not post a little while back that according to the census, there are only 500-1000 households (forget the exact numbers) who spend more than $2900 monthly on rent? Given the number of these high-priced rentals that show up on craigslist, either (a) most of them do not actually rent out, or (b) something is fishy with the census data. What do you think?
Posted by: anon at August 6, 2009 5:39 PM
Robert, did you not post a little while back that according to the census, there are only 500-1000 households (forget the exact numbers) who spend more than $2900 monthly on rent?
I did, but then I retracted that amount and replaced it with a larger estimate here.
I proposed a decay rate in that thread that, if you assume a total tax burden of 35%, and a willingness to spend 25% on rent, should estimate the # of households that can afford a (high) rent payment. This excludes corporate rentals and the like. The results are:
obviously there are error bars here, in both directions, as I think few really high-earning households would spend 1/4 of disposable incomes on rents. It would be better to assume a decay rate in willingness to pay, and adjust for that as well.
Posted by: Robert at August 6, 2009 7:10 PM
What is the standard premium for an upstairs vs and downstaris and is there naything published on this. I hear 5% or 50K for the upstairs. Which is it assuming close the same squarefootage? this would be for a TIC
Posted by: Buyer at August 6, 2009 10:11 PM
Looks like the place next door is partialyl for rent as well....
Posted by: eddy at September 11, 2009 3:06 PM
The listing for 1812 Pacific has suddenly changed from "withdrawn" to "sold" but with an undisclosed sales price.
Posted by: SocketSite at October 23, 2009 9:45 AM