Comments on: Montclair: Is This The New Hot Spot For Savvy Bay Area Buyers?

By: David

David — Thu, 01 May 2008 04:20:57 +0000

I have a feeling from having lived in Upper Rockridge and spending time in Montclair that there is less family/old money in Montclair. That’s why I have the feeling that there are more people who “stretched” to get into homes there, and we’re seeing the results of that (home prices like you point out have dropped quite a bit more in Montclair, compared to Crocker/Rockridge/Piedmont). I can’t remember the last foreclosure I saw in Piedmont, and I’ve seen all of two on the Rockridge border, and two in Crocker, but I can think of a half-dozen right now in Montclair I’ve seen just in the past few months.

By: david gordon

david gordon — Thu, 01 May 2008 03:58:08 +0000

Tracey – great assessment of Montclair vs Piedmont. From what I have seen I agree with you wholeheartedly.

By: david gordon

david gordon — Thu, 01 May 2008 03:38:18 +0000

I think Montclair has also suffered more because it is a larger area than, say, Crocker or Rockridge, and thus has more of a supply issue to flush out. Yeah, those switchbacks can be a real pain if you are way up the hill. Ideally I would like to be really close to the Village, or further north closer to Hwys 24 and 13 near the Berkeley border, which is really close to BART and College Ave.

I can’t provide statistics, but at least anecdotally speaking, in recent years I have heard of many former SF’ers who moved to Montclair and the surrounding Oakland Hills as they became priced out of the city. Who knows how many that really tallied.

But the stats do reveal that many nice Montclair properties are already selling at 20-30% discounts off prices paid in 03-06.

By: tracey.taylor

tracey.taylor — Thu, 01 May 2008 03:26:06 +0000

San Mateo: I know what you mean about Montclair v Piedmont. It think that there is that general perception about it.

But I have to say I disagree with that view. I would rather live in Montclair than Piedmont any day — even if I could afford the latter.

Piedmont is very predictable and homogeneous. Attractive and dripping in wealth and all the advantages that brings (underground electric and phone cables for instance), but bland. And the big no-no in my view is there is no heart to Piedmont — no stores and coffee shops, restaurants and useful retailers. (I don’t think you can count Piedmont Avenue — great though it is — because it’s not in Piedmont.)

Montclair, on the other hand, has a proper town center (they prefer the term “village”) and a definite sense of community. It also has much more interesting — if less swanky — homes.

By: San Mateo Home Sellers in Trouble

San Mateo Home Sellers in Trouble — Thu, 01 May 2008 02:12:37 +0000

Montclair is sort of like the poor man’s Piedmont. It’s pretty nice, though.

By: gfw

gfw — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:15:32 +0000

I grew up near Montclair, and it’s a great place to grow up! Went to Corpus Christi School, which is at the end of Estates Drive (and technically in Piedmont).

By: David

David — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:20:12 +0000

It’s interesting that Montclair, while a pretty nice (low crime, good schools, etc) neighborhood by most measures, is suffering more than, say Crocker. More bank-owned and clearly distressed sales.

My only guess is that younger families, desperate for decent schools, and priced out of Crocker/Rockridge, had to subprime&stretch it to fit in Montclair (always priced lower than crocker/rockridge due to commuting issues–it can take 15 minutes just to get from your switchback to a main road) and they’re now suffering.

Just remember when you’re buying in Montclair, that it’s always been priced less than Rockridge and Crocker, and always will be, due to location/commute. At least until the hills slide down and flatten out.