
This tear down is what $5.5M buys you in Palo Alto - wyclif
http://blog.sfgate.com/ontheblock/2016/06/17/this-tear-down-is-what-5-5m-buys-you-in-palo-alto/
======
randycupertino
I don't know why the article intentionally hides the address of this place.
Annoying. It's 1027 Waverly. Here's the trulia listing, if anyone is curious
(like I was):

[http://www.trulia.com/property/3236376439-1027-Waverley-
St-P...](http://www.trulia.com/property/3236376439-1027-Waverley-St-Palo-Alto-
CA-94301)

~~~
whamlastxmas
It's a shitty title anyway, it's suggesting the tear-down is somehow relevant
to the price. Additionally, $5.5 million is the asking price, and luxury real
estate is notoriously over priced in listings - the real price is usually
tremendously lower.

~~~
hanswesterbeek
What, so only $2.5M for that wreck?:)

~~~
whamlastxmas
$2.5 million for a huge plot of in land in a very popular city, in the most
desirable state in the country, in one of the most desirable countries in the
world. It seems pretty reasonable to me.

------
beagle3
It's been reduced to $5M after 1 week[0]. Also, if you are buying, you're
buying the lot, not the house. A 10,000 ft lot zoned for housing. (and a small
old house you need to get rid off, which therefore actually has negative
value)

[0] See randycupertino's link to trulia.

~~~
cylinder
I doubt this is zoned for multiple dwellings.

------
soyiuz
This is what I dislike / don't understand about Palo Alto. Look around here
([https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4173571,-122.1312807,3a,75y,...](https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4173571,-122.1312807,3a,75y,33.22h,95.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgsHWHVJMxzcp1iq0DscK6w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)).
This is 5 minutes by car to Stanford and to downtown Palo Alto. What do you
see? Nothing! Empty sidewalks, empty lots, Jiffy Lubes, a lamp store. Nothing
over a few stories high in sight. The entire place looks abandoned---yet this
is in the center of one of Silicon Valley, where housing and space, we are
told, are at a premium.

The culprit I suspect is the unwillingness of local governments to permit
construction that would allow for affordable housing. Space is obviously not a
problem.

~~~
whamlastxmas
I am not sure your conclusion makes sense. It's also perfectly possible that
there isn't much development going on in this area because land prices are so
high and the owners are waiting for someone to buy and develop. It doesn't
make sense to build a $200,000 gas station on your plot of land worth $5
million dollars if someone is going to buy it within 5 years and tear down the
gas station to build something catering to upper class residents living
nearby.

Look at the stuff in that area that is clearly new development: A nice credit
union, a Starbucks, a Corner Bakery, expensive name brand clothing store, a
swanky private K-8 school, an optometrist for animals - all stuff that will
continue to exist and make sense 10+ years from now when that entire area is
built up with new development.

There are good arguments against changing commercial zoning to residential
zoning. This is what creates suburbs, which I would assume Palo Alto wants to
prevent.

~~~
soyiuz
That could be the case. The thing to note though is the lack of density. In a
free market you would see developers taking advantage of the real estate
prices by building vertically. That would encourage not sub-urbanization, but
urbanization proper. I am suggesting that Palo Alto residents want to prevent
urbanization by artificially limiting density which is bad for... well
everyone, except existing property owners. And even that is questionable, the
area I link here is not at all nice to live in because it feels abandoned and
the businesses it supports are sub-urban---the muffler place, a crappy donut
shop, a car wash. You want to drive by and get out as soon as possible. There
is no convenient public transportation to the university that is only a few
miles away. There are no cute coffee shops or bars to create a neighborhood
feeling.

~~~
whamlastxmas
The existing people living there in their $1 million plus homes don't want to
live next to a bunch of high density residential. They want a small, quiet
community that doesn't have traffic problems. Obviously this sucks for
everyone else that wants to live there, but I am not sure "build high density
residential" is such a clear-cut correct solution. Do people in a city have
the right to not want to encourage further population growth? My hunch is that
they do, but maybe there's an argument that could persuade me otherwise.

Also, there's a bus line that does down the exact street you linked, and has
many stops.

------
romanovcode
I'm pretty sure on 5.5M you can go to Spain, buy a very decent house in 1st
line of sea and continue to live a good life till the rest of your days. :)

~~~
dekhn
Yes, but taking pitch calls in Coupa is going to be hard if you live in Spain.
Being able to just walk down the street to your pitch calls is the point of
living in Palo Alto.

~~~
eip
Spain will probably have internet eventually though, right?

/s

------
keithpeter
When I see properties like this that have been abandoned, I often wonder what
the story is...

UK: Someone (and I'm trying to find a source now) worked out there were
something like half a million empty houses in UK because of developers going
bankrupt, owners dying, abandonment &c. There are some legal tools to get
housing back into use. And you need planning permission to change things
sometimes.

~~~
sikosmurf
In some parts of America, if the taxes for the property go unpaid for long
enough, an interested party can start paying taxes and improve the property to
gain legal ownership. This is effectively a formal method of squatting called
"adverse possession".

~~~
kendallpark
Yeah, this happened a few years ago: [http://abcnews.go.com/Business/texas-
man-claims-mansion-16/s...](http://abcnews.go.com/Business/texas-man-claims-
mansion-16/story?id=14099714)

------
zhte415
This is why 3D holographic projections will have a massive impact on house
markets. Not right now, or for the effect to take-hold over the next decade+,
but soon (in terms of properties for a retirement plan). Because we'll be
sitting next to each other despite potentially being very physically distant.

Investment property is places with high connectivity, nice external living
environments (some like cool, some like warm, some like mountains, some like
all, I'm agnostic to what is 'best'), low (current) prices, easy transport
access when absolutely needed - not local, but flights or other rapid
transport.

This is a great long-ball investment.

~~~
bagels
We have had the telephone, email, cell phones, video chat, and yet, the trend
is still towards people moving in to cities.

Is 3d projection really going to change that trend?

~~~
jholman
What you need to remember about 3d projection is that it can defeat network
latency, in some case bringing intercontinental one-directional latency under
40ms. It can also decrease rendering latency relative to audio and video over
IP. Between these benefits, the VR telepresent conversation feels more real,
more _present_. Oh, wait. /s

(40ms one-way latency on London-NewYork or LA-Beijing requires beating the
speed of light, unless I screwed up my math).

Another thing that makes realistic VR unsuitable for telepresence (though
perhaps not a problem for "3d holographic projection") is that an HMD makes it
much harder for the system to find out what facial expression you have, and so
there's actually _less_ information to transmit to your remote correspondent.

------
nthcolumn
Especially when San Mateo could just fall into the sea someday.

~~~
dekhn
I assume you're referring to earthquakes. I live in San Mateo, have lived in
California for 25 years, and floods, fires, droughts, and traffic all seem
like more immediate risks.

