Well, our frequent reader and commenter, Sophie, doesn’t really say it, the article on BusinessWeek.com does, but she tipped us off, so we’re passing it on.
And yes, we still focus on San Francisco real estate, but find ourselves looking more and more that way (San Jose/Penisula), and receiving more and more tips from there, so why not talk about it. Half of our residents work down there anyway.
Unlike other California markets that have been battered by foreclosures, real estate in Silicon Valley, part of the pricey San Francisco Bay area, has remained relatively strong and has been buoyed by the job growth in the technology sector and some of the highest salaries in the nation. The subprime problems that have vexed other parts of California have been relegated to parts of San Jose and to the outskirts of Silicon Valley. The towns with the best schools, including Palo Alto, Woodside, Los Altos Hills, and Cupertino also tend to have the most robust markets.
Please don’t go moving there. The city is more fun.
It’s kind of boring there though. There is not much counter culture to balance all that brainiacal zest for technology, gadgets, and sudden wealth.
All my south bay friends who are single want to move to the City.
I’m interested in all things bulletproof.
I’m a developer in Palo Alto and prices have remained steady even though the volume of sales are down. Its sluggish down here, but no significant price drop yet. Not alot on the market either.
funny. My intention was not to talk about the LOCATION of the market, but about the SOURCE of the money.
For me, the $##M house on broadway owned by L.E. is as much “sillicon valley” as his $##M property in Atherton in the way that they both fit the same “who cares about mortgages when you spend $##M cash from your computer stocks”?
this was my prefered quote from the article:
And luxury homes — properties listed for more than $3.5 million — might be holding up best because buyers who can afford these prices aren’t concerned about interest-rate fluctuations or the credit crunch. SPECIFICALLY for the chosen number of 3.5M.
Now please debate about whereas $3.5M is the right number for san francisco as in “above this number, just put the property on the market and wait” while “under that number, some marketing effort is seriously needed to get an offer at or above asking” [all in summer and fall 2008 of course]
or does this number represent something else? or should we choose another number, another limit?
to quote myself, I think I said many times in 2005 and early 2006 that the lower limit of the bullet proof market was 1.5 and that number was skyrocketing as the properties were still climbing high and fast. But for me, and for 2008, I’d rather put it at 2.4, maybe 2.8M
I doubt any market right now is bullet proof. It’ll all start dropping eventually.