|
Mon Oct 26 23:16:45 2009 No Moon NASA reconsiders its spending |
The moon gets eclipsed...Image courtesy of NASA Last year,
I whined about poor spending decisions at
NASA.
Well, it's clear that my high-profile blogging has finally attracted the
attention of the White House!
A few days ago, a White House panel concluded that
NASA should avoid the moon for now, because it was too expensive and not a good use of money. Instead,
the panel recommended "concentrating on new rockets and new places to
explore."
That's great! My original 2008 post said:
NASA should focus on cheaper, robotic
missions to meet scientific aims, and also work on parallel tracks on the
chief obstacles to human missions: getting into space cheaply (propulsion out
of Earth's gravity well), and surviving in a self-contained environment.
So I feel somewhat vindicated. The panel has recognized the poor economics of
a moon landing, and has also decided to focus on propulsion. Excellent!
For some reason, NASA is still really keen on
both the International Space Station, and manned spaceflight in general, which
strikes me as
just launching money into space.
Don't get me wrong! I think we need manned spaceflight. But it is still too
expensive. We need to work on the core technologies to make human spaceflight
cheaper (and
survivable) before we throw money at long-range manned missions.
So I predict that NASA (and/or this panel) will come to the same conclusions
eventually. That is, someone will sooner or later recommend scaling back
human missions for now, in favor of more robotic ones.
But in the meantime, this is a good sign. We'll get a lot more use out of our
NASA dollars by skipping the moon!
Comments
|
Related:
> economics <
science
predictions
Unrelated:
books
energy
environment
geopolitics
lists
mathematics
|
|
Thu Oct 22 22:30:14 2009 The Dream Tour My guide to Seattle-area real estate. |
Well, my own real estate journey is slowly coming to a close. Earlier this
year I decided to sell my home and buy a different one. I had three
motivations:
First, I wanted to move closer to downtown.
Second, I think
gas prices will climb dramatically again, so I wanted to be in an area where I could walk everywhere, even work.
And third, the depressed housing market is an awesome time to trade up. My
personal opinion is that most people didn't realize that. So I think I was
able to save a lot more on my purchase than it cost me to sell in a down
market.
I put an offer in on a house in May, and put my own home up for sale in
June. Only now in October have I finally got an offer on my house, and only
now in October does it look like my May purchase could (maybe, hopefully)
come through! So with a big dose of luck I'll close on both the sale and purchase in November.
That means I've been watching the real estate market closely in Seattle for
almost a year (I started looking well before I made an offer). I'm not a
real estate agent or an expert! But I like looking at what's out there,
and seeing what I think the deals are.
So here is my own personal tour of Seattle's Best Properties. These aren't
the prettiest homes, or the nicest inside. But these are the homes that I
think have the most potential, and are the most underpriced. These aren't
cheap homes, but they are either close to the median King County price, or are
hugely discounted.
WARNING: Although I have spent many days looking in and
around homes in the greater Seattle area, I have seen very few of these particular homes in person. So
take this as an overall tour of how I see the market through my own twisted
lens, and not an endorsement
of any one property.
General Principles First, I prefer homes that need some work. Sure,
you have to do some work to improve them, but you get a discount on the
purchase price. That means you may pay about the same price in the end, but
you can have renovations done to your liking. And I don't even mean large
renovations: many homes see significant improvement just by ripping out old
carpets, removing funky fixtures such as accordian doors, and repainting. My
last home had large security gates on some of the doors (but only some,
thereby defeating the entire purpose of the security gates!). When we ripped
them off, a friend said "Congratulations, you just added $5K to the value of
your house."
Second, the bones of the house should be solid. That is, you can put
up with funky interiors and bad paint jobs, but poor foundations, settlement,
or rot can be very expensive to fix. Stay away from those unless it's a real
bargain.
Third, look for good lots. I often see very nice homes on tiny lots,
sandwiched next to each other with no privacy. Or I'll see nice homes on a very busy
street with a lot of noise. Look for lots that have a balance of privacy and space, as well as
accessibility. Those lots are out there! They don't even have to be large,
they just have to be well laid out.
Underappreciated View Homes These are my personal favorite sort
of properties. A protected view is rare, and therefore has the potential to appreciate
more than other lots. An unloved
home on a lot with a protected view could be worth much more in the long term
than a beautiful home on a nondescript lot. But I find that homes that need
work are really underpriced, so you can find great bargains in this category.
Some of the properties I'd look at in this category:
Here's one (
MLS listing 29143300) on Queen Anne with a good view to the west. I don't think this home is well
marketed! The view photos are tilted (even more than the photos I take). You
can see the house needs some updates, but if the bones are solid, then this is
a steal at $499K.
According to Zillow, this home is worth around $570K now. Zillow isn't very reliable, but that
gives you an indication.
Also, I like the lot for that property (check the Redfin listing link above).
It's narrow, but long. That means there is a long slope which protects the
view.
Here's
another view property to consider. Yes, it is expensive! It is listed at $800K.
I don't think this is a fixer: it's just feeling the impact of the market.
Even so, it is a bit overpriced where it is.
But the price is now coming down to a
reasonable level (it listed at $900K!).
If it gets to the low 700s I think it will move--and I think the sellers are
probably aware of that and would consider an offer in that range now!
This is a big house (3400 square feet), far too big for me. But if you needed
the space, this is a good one. The lot is a good size for Seattle (5000
square feet) with front and back access. There is a bit of a slope, so that
plus the street means the view is well protected.
Zillow values this property at over $900K now, and valued it over $1 million in 2008. Again, Zillow isn't perfect. But it
is an indication.
And finally, there's this
neglected gem in West Seattle. There could be a lot wrong with this one! But it is worth checking out.
If the description is even close to accurate, this could be worth a lot more
with some straightforward investment. Look at that lot! It's close to 11 thousand
square feet (!), really protecting the view.
Large single-floor homes are rare (this one is over 1900 square feet) and
you could possibly add a second story if you wanted to.
This definitely looks like the classic case of buying the most beat-up home in
a neighborhood of very nice homes. Check out the
nearby home values on Zillow! Again, that gives you an idea of the potential upside. This is worth
significant remodeling and maybe even a rebuild.
Underappreciated Waterfront Homes I've never owned waterfront.
Partly because I don't know if I'd have time to truly enjoy boating. But
mostly I've never owned waterfront because it is too expensive! But now there
are waterfront properties in Seattle available at reasonable
(non-stratospheric) prices.
This property on the south end of Lake Washington is a good example of something to look
for. It has a lot of deep waterfront for moorage. The layout of the house is
good: the top floor is for entertainment and gathering (living, dining,
kitchen) with three bedrooms on the cozy lower floor. It needs updating but
the bones look solid. And it has it's own boathouse! If you are a rower you
should really look at this one.
In general, it has more privacy than many of its neighbors, and there is a lot
of storage in and around the property. Worth a look!
And there's
this waterfront house, close to the Ballard locks. I think it is still fairly overpriced! The lot
is small, as is the house (although not bad at over 1500 square feet). The
property is laid out about as well as you could hope for a small narrow lot,
and I really like the area by the water--it is pleasant access to the water
from the house, and with minimal landscaping you could do a lot there.
In general, it is much more private than its neighbors, which is remarkable
given how close the houses are there.
I think the price has a ways more to go, but I think it will start being
attractive in the 650-700 range. Take a look at the
values of nearby properties on Zillow. Again, that gives you an idea of the potential upside.
Underappreciated Neighborhoods
What are the most prestigious neighborhoods in Seattle? I don't know, but I'd
guess Capitol Hill, Fremont, and Queen Anne. Lately Ballard and West Seattle
have gotten popular, and Magnolia, Wallingford, and Ravenna have cachet and
appeal.
But what are the neighborhoods that will be hot in 10-15 years? Buying in
those now will probably result in bigger appreciation.
I think one neglected neighborhood is Beacon Hill. It is close to the
city, has views, and now also has
Seattle's only underground lightrail station. It is very cool having convenient access to light rail!
Here's an
interesting listing on Beacon Hill. This is a home with eastern views, just a few blocks from
the light rail station. It is perched on a hill, near a golf course.
Of course, it also has very nice views, another reason that I like it. It has
a very large lot (almost 9000 square feet!) with a reasonable layout.
It may be priced a bit high, but I think
Zillow's valuation of $479K is far too low. Zillow's algorithms break down when someone renovates a
house, and I'm guessing that's what happened here.
I think a price in the mid- to upper-500s would be a bargain. This is one of
the more expensive homes in the neighborhood (which is also a bit of a risk),
but it has clear value being such a large lot with a great view.
Here's a
cute house in Seward Park. I really like the layout of this property: you enter on the uphill side,
and then enjoy the view on the downhill side. That tends to give you the most
privacy.
The house is slightly on the small side (1600 square feet), but it has had a
lot of renovations. If the bones are solid, then something under $450K strikes me as a good
price in an area that continues to be popular.
Here's
a house near where I live. This is kind of a cool neighborhood--nice older homes on a slope with a few
distinctive streets cutting through.
This is a good-sized house (2200 square feet) on a large lot (6100 square
feet) with good views. One risk is the house to the east: that is a funky lot
and someone could build bigger homes there.
The biggest risk is the "Sold AS IS" tag in the description. It could be a
perfectly nice bank-owned house that just needs interior updating! In which case, $350K is a
ridiculous steal. Or it could have major structural problems, in which case
you are really just paying for the land.
Looking at
the value of neighboring homes on Zillow you can see that there is real upside to the neighborhood!
Farther Out
Okay, so that's what $350-$750K buys you in Seattle. What if you are willing
to go a bit farther out? Then a lot more options open up. I wanted to be
close to downtown, so none of these were options for me. But sometimes I
wonder...
Okay, so Burien isn't exactly a hotspot... yet. But the little town has a lot
going for it! It is near the airport but not in the main flight paths, and is
accessible north to Seattle and south to Tacoma.
And look again: this is
Puget Sound waterfront for under $700K. That's pretty good! The house looks funky, but may be funky in a good way.
Zillow values this house much lower, at closer to $550K, but that could be due to the renovations that have
occurred since the last sale. But that does indicate you may have some room
to bargain the price down a bit more.
And if you're looking at Sound waterfront, how about
Vashon Island? This property is probably overpriced at $699K, and it needs work. So you
could probably make a much lower offer. It's possible that under $600K
would get you a great waterfront location on Vashon, with views
north and south, and over a half an acre of land. That would definitely be
worth the necessary updates (and by the looks of it, you may need to add
central heating...).
And finally, look at this
waterfront home on Vashon Island. At $425K, it is around the King County median sales price--and you can
probably make a lower offer than that! Sure, it's small (1260 square feet),
but it looks livable, and I like the layout of the waterfront grounds.
It is probably a lot of work. The house needs updating. The exterior
woodwork (docks and railings) probably need treating or replacing. But this
is probably a good deal in the $400K range, if there aren't serious problems.
Thanks...
And finally, thanks to Redfin for
such a great website! It definitely became my favorite, for its wealth of information and easy
navigation. It was the only website to remember my searches reliably, and I
loved the property overview and prior listing history.
Comments
|
Related:
> economics <
lists
predictions
Unrelated:
books
energy
environment
geopolitics
mathematics
science
|
|
Mon Oct 12 21:10:41 2009 The 2009-2010 Winter Forecast How much snow will be in the Cascades this winter? |
Should I buy a season pass to
Mt Baker this year?
Actually, I probably will. I haven't the past two years, and in each year it
was almost worth buying one. I figure if I get a season's pass, I'll
go a few more times, and then it will have paid for itself.
But the bigger question is: is it stupid to buy a season's pass this
year? After all, it is an
El Nino winter, which typically means warmer, drier weather in the Pacific Northwest.
And that means less snow.
So for once, I decided to really research the 2009-2010 winter forecasts.
What do the experts predict?
Greg Simmon's forecast is dire: "a warmer and somewhat dry weather pattern is expected from the
Pacific Northwest..." And he adds:
|
The typical barrage of winter storms that hit Seattle and Portland may not
occur this winter and lead to below-normal precipitation.
The below-normal precipitation predicted for the Pacific Northwest could have
"extended and severe ramifications" on the economy in a region that relies
heavily on winter precipitation, according to Expert Senior Meteorologist Ken
Reeves.
"A less stormy track through the Pacific Northwest, while on the surface may
seem like a good thing, it is actually the opposite," Reeves said. "Winter
snows supply water to the region throughout the year and also supply a
significant portion of their power needs. About 70 percent of electric power
generation in the Northwest comes from hydro sources."
|
The Accuweather.com 2009-2010 Winter ForecastImage courtesy of Accuweather.com Well, shoot! I mean, I love hydro sources as much as the next guy, but we
need snow!
Then,
Accuweather released a map of the expected precipitation (at left). Not good!
The best resource is probably
the National Weather Service, which has very detailed forecast temperature and precipitation maps for each month.
The bottom line? We're screwed. Everyone predicts a dry winter. It might
get better in April! So look for great spring skiing.
Well, that's the prediction. How have they done the past few years?
Here's the table I compiled. Mt Baker's average annual snowfall is 647
inches, according to their website. I figured a season was average if it was
600-700 inches of snowfall (which is a lot of snow, by the way...). Of
course, as the
Mt Baker ski area loves to tell you, they had the world record snowfall of 1140 inches in the 1998-1999 winter.
That was the winter I learned to snowboard (not at Mt Baker, sadly), and I
have to say: there was a crazy amount of snow that year.
Winter |
NOAA Snowfall Forecast (Pacific Northwest) |
Actual Snowfall at Mt Baker |
2008-2009 |
Average |
548 inches below average |
2007-2008 |
Average to Above |
764 inches above average |
2006-2007 |
Below Average |
659 inches average |
2005-2006 |
Average |
781 inches above average |
2004-2005 El Nino |
Below Average |
439 inches below average |
2003-2004 |
Average |
620 inches average |
2002-2003 El Nino |
Below Average |
586 inches below average |
2001-2002 |
Average |
736 inches above average |
2000-2001 |
Average to above |
410 inches below average |
So what does that say? It says that NOAA gets it right more often than a
random guess (44% instead of 33%). But more scarily, the past two El Nino
winters have been very dry.
So, based on that, I'd guess this will be a very poor year, with less than 450
inches of snow! I say that because it has been incredibly dry so far this
summer and fall.
However, last year there was "only" 548 inches of snow, and I thought it was
great.
And hey: maybe this means that, during the 2009-2010 Winter Season at Mt
Baker, every day will be like spring skiing!
Comments
|
Related:
> economics <
environment
predictions
Unrelated:
books
energy
geopolitics
lists
mathematics
science
|
|
|