Seattle Bubble Forum Archive

I was just talking with relatives of mine in San Francisco and from the way they talk it seems as if there must be some kind of anti-recession bubble around their town. "Everyone" they know is doing remodels, and they had to struggle like mad to find a contractor who could do some minor work on their home before the end of the year.

They also tell me about friends of theirs who have recently sold homes bought just 4 years ago for big profits (they live in the Pacific Heights area).

These comments just seem so completely disconnected from what I have been reading of the California real-estate market. Is it just that housing problems are highly localized and that some areas (like San Francisco) will chug right along through the bust without experiencing nary a hiccup?

I'd imagine that someone who bought in SF proper in 2004 can probably still sell for a profit. If you check the for the SF MSA, the overall market is just getting back to the BOY '04 level for the region as a whole.

Applying the theory that the apple rots from the outside in, prime areas in SF are probably still relatively ok. Same as close in Seattle areas are doing OK while outlying areas are feeling it.

But i'd imagine these areas are at best flat - and more likely slightly down, so "OK" is a relative term.

There's 3 different remodels in progress on my street in Bellevue right now. But I'm also seeing askings prices 10%-15% below sale prices from last year, and very little is moving. I have no idea of the remodelers are planning to put the houses on the market when they are done.

The city of San Francisco itself has a very high median (~800,000 from the census) and about 40% of housing units are owner occupied compared to about 50% in Seattle.

It seems to me that public transportation has both helped and hurt in the bay area. Every time I read about the exurbs of the bay area I am shocked at how far people there are traveling each day. The hardest hit exurb areas seem to be 60-100 miles from San Francisco, that would be similar to commuting from Bellingham to Seattle. Places I consider deep exurbs here like Marysville, Smokey Point, Orting that are about 30-40 miles from the city would be considered a relatively close in suburb there I am sure.

Saying the SF exurbs are 60+ miles away is a bit misleading. The Bay area has several employment hubs (SF, San Jose, Oakland, etc) so some of those exurbs are more like suburbs of the secondary employment hubs. They've still been pummeled.

San Francisco won't escape this either, regardless.

Westsidebilly,

Where would people in Manteca be commuting to?

Stockton, Modesto, Livermore, maybe Fremont... all of which are still a fair ways away, of course.

My point, poorly made as it was, was that just because someone lives in the Bay area doesn't mean they work in downtown San Francisco.

Is San Francisco immune from skyrocketing interest rates?