Archive for the ‘Glendale, Pasadena’ Category
September 3, 2008
Property Shark’s July 2008 data on foreclosure resales in L.A. County show zip code 91206 with the highest number of sales – nine – in the Glendale/Pasadena area.
My Redfin search, zooming in south of the 134 Freeway, turned up 12 single-family home sales and 23 condominium sales.
Only a few blocks in this area have not yet been swallowed by condominium projects, and the building continues seemingly unabated. For those willing to tolerate high density surroundings (and nearby construction) to gain a central location, this is a great neighborhood.
There are still some vintage single-family homes here, and they sit together on flat lots walking distance from mall shopping and restaurants to the west (the Galleria, Americana, and Brand Blvd.), and staples and services to the east (grocery stores, Virgil’s Hardware, car repair shops, even Staples itself). In addition, LA Metro and Beeline buses run along both Brand Blvd. and Glendale Avenue.
While this is a great walking neighborhood, I’ve seen many reckless pedestrians like those spotted on its streets by Tropico Station. Glendale also has its share of reckless drivers, so pedestrians should be doubly alert instead of barely aware.
Foreclosure resales in central 91206 were exclusively condominiums. Here are two:
301 N. Belmont Street, #103
$366,000 (7/22/08)
Sold for $527,000 (3/9/07), and taken back by the lender for $400,500 (1/23/08).
401 N. Kenwood Street, #108
$355,000 (7/28/08)
Sold for $475,000 (12/14/05), and taken back by the lender for $375,601 (12/11/07).
My Redfin listing search showed an average asking price of $433 per sq.ft., with 2 single-family homes and 22 condominiums on the market. The second home is actually advertised as a teardown for investment purposes:
417 N. Isabel Street
$480,0002 bed/1 bath
1,164 sq.ft.
$412 per sq.ft.
On Redfin 5 days
1128 Stanley Avenue
$559,000
2 bed/1 bath
836 sq.ft.
$669 per sq.ft.
On Redfin 23 days
The listing states that the property comes with permits and designs to build four 2 bed/2 bath apartments on the lot.
Photo courtesy of Legendary Classic.
August 28, 2008
Four out of five July 2008 foreclosure resales in the La Crescenta area changed hands for less than the lender paid to buy them back. Two of the five were condominiums.
I gathered this data from a Property Shark Excel download covering all zip codes in Los Angeles County. I’ll post my findings on other Glendale and Pasadena zip codes next week; for today, I thought I’d focus on the hillside neighborhood I featured in my fire season post.
La Crescenta, the “balcony of Southern California,” is part unincorporated L.A. County and part city of Glendale. Most single-family residences here are modest older homes on sloping lots, and many small to large newer condominium and townhome developments line the main streets.
Redfin shows a $382 average sales price per square foot for the last three months in 91214. The neighborhood page shows that 37% of single-family home and 50% of condominium listings have had their prices reduced, with an average reduction of 6%.
Here are the 91214 foreclosure resales I found on Property Shark:
3305 Mills Avenue
$415,000 (7/24/08)
Purchased for $539,000 (7/1/05) and taken back by the lender for $449,650 (6/1/08)
3348 Community Avenue
$350,000
The previous sale price is $202,000 (1/22/1999); the lender bought this home for $352,981 (5/22/08)
3100 Santa Carlotta Street
$465,000 (7/25/08)
Purchased for $670,000 (10/13/05) and taken back by the lender for $514,266(5/16/08).
3075 Foothill Blvd, #115
$295,000 (7/21/08)
Purchased for $410,000 (6/30/05) and taken back by the lender for $303,645 (4/8/08).
3130 Montrose Avenue, #113
$330,000 (7/31/08)
Purchased for $440,000 (6/9/05) and taken back by the lender for $297,464 (1/16/08).
August 27, 2008
City-hired crews show up periodically to trim tree branches in our back yard touching utility lines. We don’t pay directly for this service, and we can’t dictate the scheduling.
My last three posts warned first time home buyers about the hidden costs of landscape upkeep. I advised them to evaluate tree trimming costs, palm tree hazards, and brush clearance requirements. Clearance of utility lines isn’t a direct cost, but in my opinion the effort to size up anyone who wants to come onto my property and inspect it does impose some stress.
My Lesson 4 for L.A. area home buyers: If you enter into contract to buy property where utility lines or poles are located, expect periodic visits to your yard by city and utility employees and landscape crews. When you receive a preliminary title report, you’ll notice an easement for these activities. Unlike some other easements, this one will be used.
A Glendale Line Clearance Forestry Supervisor just knocked on our door last week to let me know he was going in our back yard. He looked at the large cypress tree in the corner of our lot. It towers in front of a tall utility pole, conveniently hiding it from our view.
While we can’t see the pole, I’m sure the neighbors behind us can see it perfectly. As soon as tree branches start growing toward it each year, the city sends out a crew to hack back any branches too close to the pole or its lines.
This is an annual event, and the city spends more than $500,000 annually on work like this on residential lots. Here is the city of Glendale web page on tree trimming and line clearance.
And below are more Redfin listings in the La Crescenta neighborhood, this time along its less expensive southwestern edge. The average asking price per square foot here is $397, and listings have been on Redfin an average of 99 days. The first two listings are among the lowest-priced; the third is close to average for the area since I skipped past short sales.
3702 1st Avenue
$499,000 (originally $649,000 and reduced twice)
3 bed/2 bath
1,800 sq.ft.
$277 per sq.ft.
On Redfin 116 days
3749 1st Avenue
$629,000
3 bed/3 bath
2,038 sq.ft.
$309 per sq.ft.
On Redfin 219 days
This is a bank-listed foreclosure; the listing does not contain prior sales history.
3932 Mayfield Avenue
$729,000
3 bed/1.75 bath
1,717 sq.ft.
$425 per sq.ft.
On Redfin 48 days
Photo above courtesy of jon360 at flickr.com.
August 27, 2008
A hillside area inside your property line could run from $500 to $1500 or higher to clear of brush and weeds, and the L.A. County Fire Department will require you to do it. This is my third landscape lesson learned, posted for buyers trying to add up all the potential costs of owning a home in the L.A. area.
As LAist just noted, fire season is here. Unfortunately, licensed contractors don’t offer fire sale prices for clearing hillsides and overgrown landscape fuel.
My last two posts, The Treetop View, and Tall Palms are a Headache, advised that periodic trimming of large trees and tall palms on a home site can be expensive. The work is optional, however. If you just don’t want to bother with your landscape, you can let tree branches grow toward the sky and palm fronds dangle 30 feet above your head.
If your property is located in a fire hazard zone, however, or if there is a lovely wild hillside behind it, you don’t have a choice. Find out where the property line ends and get an estimate for the annual cost of clearing it and trimming the rest of the landscape to comply with the fire department’s mandate. You will have to undertake this cost every year.
L.A. County inspects each property, assesses compliance, and fines owners if inspectors have to travel to a site more than twice (this Fire Department blog entry explains the rules).
A neighborhood group in Altadena just received a FireSafe grant to trim back overgrown trees and reported on the hazard abatement here. I don’t know what a FireSafe grant is, but homeowners in other fire hazard areas might want to find out.
La Crescenta, nicknamed the Balcony of Southern California, is on the north side of the Verdugos. As this resident writes, it has seen its share of wildfires very close to home.
Here are three of the newest Redfin listings high in the foothills of north Glendale and La Crescenta:
2837 Pinelawn Drive
$869,000
4 bed/2.5 bath
2,376 sq.ft.
$366 per sq.ft.
On Redfin 6 days
2723 Pinelawn Drive
$899,000
4 bed/2.75 bath
2,292 sq.ft.
$392 per sq.ft.
On Redfin 2 days
3535 Paraiso Way
$679,900
3 bed/2 bath
1,702 sq.ft.
$399 per sq.ft.
On Redfin 5 days
August 22, 2008
Five years ago, an unseasonal January windstorm snapped our neighbors’ 20 foot palm tree in half. If its fall hadn’t been broken by the roof of our neighbor’s SUV, the tree probably would have crashed into our front window.
The gently swaying palm tree, like those seen in a sunset photo yesterday on the Your Scene blog, is an icon for Southern California’s ideal climate and relaxed lifestyle. Curbed LA just reported a local protest at the removal of mature palm trees; taking the other side, one of its commenters shot back that palm tree fronds rain down on cars and pedestrians. I’m in that camp: these trees are far from care free.
Palm trees are supposed to sway in the wind, for example, but our neighbors’ did not. I believe the tree snapped because stringed lights tightly wound around it from the base to the top didn’t allow any flex.
If a tall palm graces a property you want to buy, take a close look at how many dried fronds are attached to its crown but lowered against the trunk. Dried up palm fronds are heavy and have sharp ridged edges. Strong winds hardly ever snap palm trees, but they often detach dead fronds and send these sharp, heavy objects plunging to the ground.
Once on the ground, they aren’t easy to get rid of. They are usually too large to fit in regular trash bins, and they are very difficult to cut up. Both Glendale and Los Angeles do not allow palm fronds placed in green waste recycling bins.
At a hillside home we lived in, we got a reasonable landscape estimate for removing dead fronds off a mid-size palm: $250. Since this was just one line item in our over-budget landscape estimate, we decided to just let the fronds fall where they may.
I found an informative blog post yesterday ranting about an expensive palm trimming estimate, but the language used in the post to describe it is, in my opinion (grammarians can correct me), unfit to link to.
I’m always fascinated to witness extra-long cherry pickers sending brave men high into the air to trim the extremely tall palm trees lining some Glendale parkways. This must be a high-cost municipal budget item.
The story of this man’s former palm tree, located right near power lines, reminded me of the fire that started in my parents’ back yard because of a power line that touched the crown of their palm tree. Homes on surrounding streets lost power for several hours.
My conclusion for those first time homebuyers looking at landscapes: Palm trees offer little shade, pose real hazards, and are no picnic to trim.
Here are some Redfin listings in Glendale north of Glenoaks and east of Brand (within sight of those extremely tall palm trees I mentioned):
939 N. Isabel Street
$739,000
3 bed/2.25 bath
1,728 sq.ft.
$428 per sq.ft.
On Redfin 4 days
1230 N. Howard Street
$900,000
4 bed/3 bath
3,280 sq.ft.
$274 per sq.ft.
On Redfin 146 days
This listing says that the home is priced $80,000 below a recent appraisal, is in need of some TLC, but “has great bones and could be spectacular.” It is well below the average price per square foot in the neighborhood.
105 W. Kenneth Road
$990,000
3 bed/1.75 bath
2,344 sq.ft.
$422 per sq.ft.
On Redfin 37 days
This home has views of Glendale and (in the distance) downtown Los Angeles skylines, past its views of the palm trees lining Brand Blvd.
August 20, 2008
Trees need to be trimmed, and large trees are expensive to trim. Further, large trees can usually only be trimmed by a crew using expensive equipment. Large trees with diseases or infestations require expensive care. Established neighborhoods, like those in Glendale and Pasadena, have lots of homes with mature landscaping and large trees.
These facts hit me only after I moved into my current home, and I offer them to the Redfin Forum first time home buyer who posted here and asked for advice about “the complete financial picture of home ownership.” There are plenty of replies dealing with the current market, taxes, insurance, and investment formulas, so check those out. I’m giving advice here only on the facts I learned above. Careful readers have probably already noted that the word ‘expensive’ appears in each of the first three sentences of this post.
A huge camphor tree, whose trunk took up the width of the parkway, offered plenty of morning shade in the front yard of our first home. Of course, parkway trees in Glendale are a city responsibility, so the branches never concerned us.
We sold that home (story for another time), and our current home has plenty of afternoon shade, but it comes from four large trees in our back yard.
Shortly after we bought the house, my husband and I invited a contractor friend to evaluate the driveway and garage. I remember our friend commenting on the trees: he said he liked to tell clients that even Bill Gates couldn’t buy a mature shade tree planted in just the right spot – it had to have been there for decades.
Perhaps Bill Gates couldn’t buy the tree, but he could certainly afford to have it trimmed as often as needed. Within a year, extended branches on two of the trees, which the previous owners had ignored, were encroaching on the open space in our yard. Both trees are at least 30 feet high, and some branches were weighed down almost to the ground. The total trimming bill, as I recall (and this was back in the year 2000) was $750 for all four trees, and yes, I think I did shop around.
When the crew finished I looked at the bare upper branches of two of the trees and wondered if they would ever thrive again. But Brazilian Pepper trees (classified as a weed in Florida, I learned) grow back quite quickly, and within two years we called for estimates again.
This time around, we were also concerned about the white sticky weblike material draped over much of the leaves, and the small gnat-like white insects flying around our faces in the back yard. This was a whitefly infestation, we were told, and we got a referral to an agricultural specialist. The total bill for tree injections (which actually did solve the problem and it has been at least 6 years now) was over $300. Of course we paid for another round of tree trimming at that time.
There was another round after that. And now I think we need to call for estimates again. I’ll have more warnings for first time home buyers about landscaping and tree issues in upcoming posts. For today, I’ll conclude: be sure to add in the costs of maintaining the living structures on your property as well as the built ones.
August 18, 2008
Home sale trends in East Pasadena are plainer than the signs in today’s Zen Monday entry on Pasadena Daily Photo. The photograph looks like it was taken in the foothills of zip code 91107, and its No Parking signs point outward in front of a fenced-off empty parking lot.
Four buyers can now park in front of zip code 91107 homes I’ve tracked on Redfin’s newly upgraded Favorites page. Two other sellers are still waiting to park somewhere else.
The change in status of my Redfin Favorites caused by these four buyers is now easier to track, and the Favorites page is easier to use. Individual listings can be expanded without opening a new window.
If you store Redfin email updates on neighborhood listings, you can also find original listing prices on sold properties (these disappear from the MLS when the property is sold). Here’s my report:
Six Pasadena 91107 listings I featured in previous posts have sold or gone off market, while 5 are still active.
SOLD:
1265 Michillinda Ave.
$750,000 (7/30/08)
Listing price: $769,000 (6/5/08)
1385 Rexford Avenue
$634,000 (7/9/08)
Listing price: $689,000 (5/13/08)
1475 Riviera Drive
$620,000 (6/20/08)
Listing price: $689,000 (6/6/08 – came back on the market after falling out of escrow)
3710 New Haven Road
$820,000 (7/18/08)
Listing price $888,000 (6/4/08 – came back on the market after falling out of escrow)
OFF MARKET:
930 Crestview Drive
Listed at $750,000 and reduced to $725,000 before going off the market.
620 Mercedes Avenue
Listed at $620,000, eventually reduced to $565,000. The last email I received on this property showed its status as “contingent,” however, no sale appears to have taken place and it is now off the market.
ACTIVE:
I list two of the five remaining favorites below. The first one is priced at almost $100 less per square foot than all the others. The second is the most expensive of the five.
3690 Mayfair Drive
$625,000
3 bed/2 bath
1,750 sq.ft.
$357 per sq.ft.
On Redfin 80 days
No photos of this house are available.
1155 Rexford Drive
$800,000
3 bed/2 bath
1,698 sq.ft.
$471 per sq.ft.
On Redfin 73 days
This is advertised as a view home and a short sale subject to lender approval. Since the last sale price is $550,000 (2003), it appears the sellers took out their bubble equity.
August 15, 2008
A community backlash just defeated Glendale Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission’s plan to charge hourly fees for youth sports leagues using city fields. At a special meeting yesterday, the commission reversed its July 2 decision as it faced unified opposition from local Little League and AYSO representatives.
Jason Wells of the Glendale News press covered the story and published this update today.
Thousands of dollars from each league would have been necessary to pay those fees, which the commission wanted to cover maintenance costs and needed improvements. Families already pay annual league registration fees of $100 or more per child and added costs for equipment and transportation.
The commission is now seeking alternatives including corporate sponsorships and donations.
Sponsorships have paid for improvements in the past. Just two years ago, parents of former Glendale Little Leaguer Carlton Valvo II, who died in the World Trade Center attacks, donated $10,000 for the new scoreboard and other improvements at Glendale’s Babe Herman Little League Field.
The city of Glendale is upgrading its sports fields on a rotating basis, closing one at a time, which makes scheduling games, practices, and regular maintenance on the other fields problematic. Scholl Canyon baseball fields, with views as spectacular as its golf course views (pictured here by Tropico Station), are currently being upgraded.
August 13, 2008
I just read Glendale Water and Power’s Water Supply Alert, another in a series of pleas to residents to conserve water “or face mandatory water use restrictions.” The Glendale News Press July 10 article quoted GWP Commissioner Patrick Foley complaining that voluntary conservation hasn’t worked.
The article prompted this spirited response from Selina and Arden Daniels:
Why is it that the City Council gave approval of a 72-unit apartment on San Fernando Road (“Housing project gets city approval,” July 9); adjacent 68-unit Glendale City LIghts affordable rental housing project, which is already under development (“Housing project gets city approval,” July 9); a 65-unit affordable housing project on 1955 S. Brand Blvd. (“Housing project gets city approval,” July 9); 44-unit affordable housing project, called Metro Loma, at 328 Mira Loma Ave. (“Area awaits housing project,” July 7); a 94-year-old Craftsman-style home to be converted to a five-unit apartment complex (“Owners pitch apartment plan to residents,” Monday): and a proposed 11-story Hyatt hotel for downtown (“Hyatt plan on its way,” Wednesday).
Why should we, the single-family dwellers, be criticized by Glendale Water & Power Commissioner Patrick Foley for not conserving water (“City’s water supply tight,” July 10)?
Foley stated this week, “Homeowners have all but erased gains earlier this year” in conserving water.
Why should we conserve water? Especially when the city fathers cannot say “no” to any land developer?
How many gallons of water can you imagine more than 500 new residents will be using in the bathtubs, showers, dishwashers, water heaters, laundry washers, not to mention the use in a hotel?
How much more energy can you imagine will be used?
We all well know why we should conserve, but why do our leaders lack this knowledge?
These are tough economic times — so let the land developers suffer along with the rest of us.
They should go back to the Midwest, where restoration of damaged homes must be a high priority due to the tornado destruction.
For goodness sakes, members of the Glendale City Council as well as Los Angeles County Zoning and Planning Commission need to be reasonable.
They should place a moratorium on recently approved and future multifamily dwellings.
Water conservation is not for just a select few – every one of us will pay the price for the overdevelopment in our city and valley.
Thank you, Selina and Arden! I hope your letter gets copied and quoted at every municipal meeting in Southern California.
Local governments aren’t looking out for existing homeowners and renters if they enact mandatory water use prohibitions while continuing to approve new developments. Individual residents taking postive steps are even being harassed. Orange County is going after a homeowner who installed fake grass to reduce costs and conserve water. Here in Glendale, a renter was just cited for reducing green space by converting a front lawn to a water-conserving California native plant garden.
On the lighter side, LA Observed wondered who was policing LA County when its sprinklers were on during the middle of the day.
An LA Times opinion piece recently predicted, in a fearful tone, that the era of growth in California may be over due to persistent water shortages. It cited a state law that now requires documenting water supplies for very large new developments. Apparently it must not apply to the size of developments recently approved in Glendale.
What’s wrong with growth being over for Southern California? I believe most current homeowners and renters (who elect municipal government representatives, by the way), share my own opposition to any more large multifamily dwellings bringing more traffic and crowding to our community. To developers: go where the water is!
August 11, 2008
Walking around Pasadena is easier if you are further from the center of town. That’s my conclusion from the Walkabout wrap-up covered in this Sunday’s LA Times.
Deborah Murphy, one of 120 walkers, wrote a report for Streetsblog LA on the Pasadena event back in March. I agree wholeheartedly with her finding that traffic near construction projects presents added danger for pedestrians. She also had this to say about making transit stops easier to get to:
Southern California has invested billions of dollars in our transit system, yet has not done a good enough job of creating a safe, comfortable and pleasant environment on our city streets for people to get to the stations or signage for people to orient themselves when they arrive there and find their way to their destination.
At the end of July, Under the Dome covered a recent city finding that 78 percent of the downtown workforce uses cars to commute, and among those who also live in the same area as they work, the number is still 58 percent. Blogger Dan Abendschein commented:
So most workers are commuting far to get to downtown Pasadena and those that live close are generally set on using their cars to drive short distances.
The point of all these studies is to direct how to plan for the city’s future. But, also, as Sid Tyler pointed out in Monday’s meetings, they perhaps show that the city’s vision for developing itself to become a biking/walking/public transportation mecca has not happened.
Positive ideas and strong direction eventually produce results. Pasadena should continue to pursue its vision despite these interim findings. Addressing safety issues, the city has a helpful pedestrian safety page on its website here. In case you want to take a test walk and don’t know the best route, Foothill Cities Blog just reviewed Google’s new walking directions tool here.
North of downtown, the neighborhood bounded by Hill and Altadena features tree-lined residential streets, without or without sidewalks, close to major arteries with storefronts. Here is a walkable neighborhood away from downtown traffic, Gold Line stops, and major construction.
Many of the lowest priced listings on Redfin in this neighborhood are distress sales. Three under $500,000:
1496 Paloma Street
$495,000
2 bed/1.75 bath
1,038 sq.ft.
$477 per sq.ft.
On Redfin 25 days
A bank-owned REO, this sold in December 2005 for $630,000, and in April 2008 for $459,000.
2455 Casa Grande Street
$499,000 (originally $699,000)
3 bed/2 bath
1,642 sq.ft.
$304 per sq.ft.
On Redfin 52 days
Property to be sold as is; last sold May 2006 for $670,000.
1460 Whitefield Road
$499,000 (originally $599,000)
4 bed/2 bath
1,260 sq.ft.
$396 per sq.ft.
On Redfin 54 days
Listed as a fixer. There are two separate 2 bed/1 bath structures on this lot and the listing advertises its rental possibilities. Last sold August 2006 for $765,000. This is either bank-owned or a short sale.
Some recent sales in this price range:
1128 North Hill Avenue
$412,500 (6/27/08)
2 bed/1 bath
1,470 sq.ft.
$281 per sq.ft.
Last sold March 2004 for $453,000.
2325 Cooley Place
$455,000 (6/19/08 – listing price was $510,000)
3 bed/2 bath
1,680 sq.ft.
$271 per sq.ft.
This sold August 2004 for $650,000 and January 2008 for $295,250.
1956 Galbreth Road
$550,000 (7/7/08 – listing price was $669,000)
3 bed/2 bath
1,675 sq.ft.
$328 per sq.ft.
