Recently in Epic Category
A long, long time ago, in a galaxy close by, a cute Victorian fourplex on Central tried to sell itself at the strongly cash-flow-negative price of $749,000. Three years later, it's back at a much more down-to-earth price of $599,000.
The price history is a lesson in what not to do when buying property.
The price history is a lesson in what not to do when buying property.
Dan Neumansky beat me to it. 1304 Morton, which sold (with great difficulty) not that long ago, got a high-tech studio makeover, and tried to sell itself even more recently, just massively slashed its price from $1,329,000 to $899,999.
So one assumes the new owner may be taking it with him, which should help with the price drop. Some research I did (no links to respect his privacy) suggests he's a big-shot music producer, and so he'll find something to do with it.
The new description doesn't mention the studio:
Rare Painted Lady Victorian, Sumptous Eastlake period Decor, like a page out of BETTER HOMES & GARDENS MAGAZINE! Was on the market at $1.3M+ now priced 4 quick sale! TURN-KEY condition!All systems upgraded. Tenant spent $$$ & converted full basemnt/gar 2 Art Deco game rm/wine cellar/home theater. Gourmet Remod kitchen w/ sub zero fridge & viking stove. Walk 2 shops, park & Franklin School.
So one assumes the new owner may be taking it with him, which should help with the price drop. Some research I did (no links to respect his privacy) suggests he's a big-shot music producer, and so he'll find something to do with it.
A nostalgic post today remembering frequent topics on this blog.
The Webster House, 1238 Versailles Avenue, finally sold after being repossessed by the bank. The price history is edifying, and it looks like somebody paid about what the house is worth.
The Webster House, 1238 Versailles Avenue, finally sold after being repossessed by the bank. The price history is edifying, and it looks like somebody paid about what the house is worth.
The terminally unsellable green infill property at 1533 Morton, which you may remember is built in another property's backyard is back on the market at a hysterical $759,000 (MLS #40524543).
It'll take a lot of sunshine to be truly off the grid, but if you can make it work, it's a reallyawful great deal.
OPEN HOME: Sun 2-4pm (5/29) - Live off the grid on the island of Alameda. Built in 2009, fully energy efficient, green construction home, designed by famed Berkeley architect. Dual master suites on top level with addl 3rd bed/office with full bath on ground floor. High Walkscore in Central Alameda.Here's a sneak peek at the property hiding behind its bigger brother:
It'll take a lot of sunshine to be truly off the grid, but if you can make it work, it's a really
A pair of large matching homes were spamming Craigslist about three years ago: 2318 Pacific Avenue and 2324 Pacific Avenue. After multiple attempts, 2318 Pacific is back again as MLS(r) ID #40514855 at a new, more realistic price of $649,000. Its valiant (not) attempts at selling made Knifecatchers' "Best of 2008".
It's described as follows:
The new price is down an impressive $801,000 from its initial list price back in 2008.
Don't believe me?
Redfin doesn't show the price history, only the listing history with price changes and delist/relist events, but it's entertaining nonetheless.
It's described as follows:
Large 3,600 sqft duplex at the prime Park St District. Original details, high ceiling, skylights, hardwood floor. Great income. Surrounded by a mix of shops & restaurants in the Park St Business District / Downtown Alameda. Half a block to Park St, Marketplace, McGee's, King of Thai Noodle, Habanas, Ole's Waffle Shop, Free Library, Alameda Theatre, City Hall."Prime Park St District" may be true if you don't mind being both close enough to the main drag to be annoying (if you live there) and far enough away to be annoying (if you're running a business and need the foot traffic).
The new price is down an impressive $801,000 from its initial list price back in 2008.
Don't believe me?
Redfin doesn't show the price history, only the listing history with price changes and delist/relist events, but it's entertaining nonetheless.Property History for 2318 PACIFIC Ave
| Date | Event | Price | Appreciation | Source |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 21, 2011 | Listed (New) | $649,000 | -- | EBRD #40514855 |
|
|
| Mar 19, 2011 | Delisted | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #8 |
|
|
| Mar 18, 2011 | Listed (New) | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #8 |
|
|
| Nov 20, 2008 | Delisted | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #7 |
|
|
| Oct 13, 2008 | Listed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #7 |
|
|
| Jul 23, 2008 | Delisted | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #6 |
|
|
| Jul 19, 2008 | Price Changed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #6 |
|
|
| Jul 10, 2008 | Price Changed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #6 |
|
|
| Jul 09, 2008 | Price Changed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #6 |
|
|
| Jun 23, 2008 | Price Changed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #6 |
|
|
| Jun 16, 2008 | Price Changed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #6 |
|
|
| May 27, 2008 | Listed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #6 |
|
|
| May 27, 2008 | Delisted | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #5 |
|
|
| Apr 25, 2008 | Listed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #5 |
|
|
| Feb 12, 2008 | Delisted | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #4 |
|
|
| Jan 23, 2008 | Listed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #4 |
|
|
| Jan 09, 2008 | Delisted | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #3 |
|
|
| Nov 08, 2007 | Listed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #3 |
|
|
| Oct 30, 2007 | Delisted | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #2 |
|
|
| Oct 26, 2007 | Listed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #2 |
|
|
| Oct 17, 2007 | Delisted | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #1 |
|
|
| Sep 19, 2007 | Price Changed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #1 |
|
|
| Aug 08, 2007 | Price Changed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #1 |
|
|
| Jul 24, 2007 | Listed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #1 | ||
Remember that post of the week about 1715 Schiller over two years ago? The poor little blue thing filled to the brim with discarded vehicles and other bits?
It's back (MLS #40505847) over two years later, apparently in the same condition--the agent is using the same photo, the price is in the same ballpark, and it's advertised as a "contractor special". Especially touching is the use of the same photo twice, with different aspect ratios, perhaps to highlight how versatile this house is, all 856 sqft of it. Or perhaps because the interior is NSFW.
The MLS(r) description says this:
The thing about fixing a house up is that there are fixed costs to the fixing, regardless of how small the house is. Your kitchen may be half the size of the average kitchen, but you're likely to spend more than half as much for a given finish level, if only because your appliances don't care where they live and cost the same in a 8x8 kitchenette as they do in a 20x20 gourmet extravaganza. In general, the smaller the house, the less (resale) value you're getting for a given improvement dollar, all else equal. Based on the original listing description, I wouldn't be surprised if the total cost of rehabbing this place was north of $50,000, bringing the TCO to a minimum of $300,000, or $350 / sqft for a tiny house on a tiny lot. Does that still constitute "good value after fixing up" in this market? You tell me.
It's back (MLS #40505847) over two years later, apparently in the same condition--the agent is using the same photo, the price is in the same ballpark, and it's advertised as a "contractor special". Especially touching is the use of the same photo twice, with different aspect ratios, perhaps to highlight how versatile this house is, all 856 sqft of it. Or perhaps because the interior is NSFW.
The MLS(r) description says this:Fixer! Priced to Quick Sale in Central Alameda. GREAT Opportunity! Buy low as a fixer and still have good value after fixing up! Not a Short Sale but is a distress sale and owers must Sell Now! Don't wait!!
The thing about fixing a house up is that there are fixed costs to the fixing, regardless of how small the house is. Your kitchen may be half the size of the average kitchen, but you're likely to spend more than half as much for a given finish level, if only because your appliances don't care where they live and cost the same in a 8x8 kitchenette as they do in a 20x20 gourmet extravaganza. In general, the smaller the house, the less (resale) value you're getting for a given improvement dollar, all else equal. Based on the original listing description, I wouldn't be surprised if the total cost of rehabbing this place was north of $50,000, bringing the TCO to a minimum of $300,000, or $350 / sqft for a tiny house on a tiny lot. Does that still constitute "good value after fixing up" in this market? You tell me.
Hard to believe, after all the trouble it had to sell, but 1304 Morton is back on the market.
Check out this recap post for its sad history, captured in spotty but gory detail on Redfin:
For reference, the current MLS(r) ID is 40499154 and the new list price is an eye-popping $1,329,000. The photos on Redfin are something else--get a load of the recording room with the built-in guitar-hanger niche, and the totally over-the-top home cinema room.
If I wanted a studio or a high-end movie theater in my house, I would want to have them built to my specs so I could pick out the components, layout, furniture, etc. The only reason I can think of to spend $400,000 over last year's price to get someone else's vision of those rooms is if I wanted those things but didn't have the cash to have them built, and so I'd want to roll their cost into my mortgage. But my sense is that this Victorian enchilada is going to have a hard time appraising out for an 80/20 loan--these kinds of "improvements" are so specific they rarely resell for what you spent on them. So any buyer is going to have to come up with some serious cash, and my contention is that any buyer with that kind of cash reserves isn't going to want someone else's dream theater/editing room/studio--they're going to want their own.
And it's not as though there's a penury of seven-digit houses (or almost) on the market; this house is now the priciest in all of 94501.
There's no question this is a superb house, and now as a bonus you can record your hit album and shoot (and edit!) your videos in your swank Victorian palace. And there's a handy gas station 200 feet away for your pyrotechnic effects. What's not to love?
Check out this recap post for its sad history, captured in spotty but gory detail on Redfin:
For reference, the current MLS(r) ID is 40499154 and the new list price is an eye-popping $1,329,000. The photos on Redfin are something else--get a load of the recording room with the built-in guitar-hanger niche, and the totally over-the-top home cinema room.If I wanted a studio or a high-end movie theater in my house, I would want to have them built to my specs so I could pick out the components, layout, furniture, etc. The only reason I can think of to spend $400,000 over last year's price to get someone else's vision of those rooms is if I wanted those things but didn't have the cash to have them built, and so I'd want to roll their cost into my mortgage. But my sense is that this Victorian enchilada is going to have a hard time appraising out for an 80/20 loan--these kinds of "improvements" are so specific they rarely resell for what you spent on them. So any buyer is going to have to come up with some serious cash, and my contention is that any buyer with that kind of cash reserves isn't going to want someone else's dream theater/editing room/studio--they're going to want their own.
And it's not as though there's a penury of seven-digit houses (or almost) on the market; this house is now the priciest in all of 94501.
There's no question this is a superb house, and now as a bonus you can record your hit album and shoot (and edit!) your videos in your swank Victorian palace. And there's a handy gas station 200 feet away for your pyrotechnic effects. What's not to love?
The Neumanskys already covered 1831 San Jose Avenue, but I figured I'd throw my bonnet into the ring because this listing is so completely out of touch with the market it deserves an award.
1831 San Jose is a very pretty Victorian (although I personally ogled its roof and siding a week or two ago, and let me tell you neither looks all that great, but then again I'm not a roofer, sider, or home inspector, so for all I know it's all brand new and I need new glasses). It sits semi-grandly in the famed Leonardville district, named after a prolific and talented builder of the late-ish 1800s, surrounded by other Victorians with varying degrees of grandness (the corner-lotted one east of today's property is particularly magnificent, and huge).
It's large-ish (2,072 sqft) on a decent sized lot (6,600 sqft) and sports 5 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms, which is nothing to sneeze at. The listing claims 3 levels, but it's not clear whether the "lower level" (frequently, and equivalently, referred to as "basement") meets all the city's criteria for regular living space (e.g. the city has stringent requirements on parking availability for any unit or subset of a larger home to be counted as living space, over and above what the building code requires in terms of ceiling height and such). 2,072 sqft isn't a small home, but by way of comparison its prenominate easterly neighbor at 1835 San Jose is over twice as large, with 8 bedrooms in 4,761 sqft of Victorian goodness standing unarguably grandly on a large corner lot.
The property does look very pretty in its Craigslist photos, and the yard is quite a sight (the agent calls it "magical"). The listing agent also describes the kitchen as "French-infused", which may have been achieved by steeping French chefs in hot water for some period of time and spraying the infusion throughout the room using elegant little perfume spritzers (the listing doesn't specify if that is indeed the process the owners used to French-infuse their kitchen). However that French infusion was arrived at, it seems to involve hanging your pots from a ceiling rack, commissioning your appliances from Solingen, and julienning your veggies on very shiny stone slabs. In other words, French infusion is indistinguishable from every other splurge kitchen financed by home equity withdrawals between 2003 and 2006 in the continental United States, at least to the untrained eye:
The price tag for this medium-sized hunk of gorgeosity is a mere $1,390,000. The current owners (over)paid a cool million back in 2004, and proceeded to sink beaucoup bucks into la maison to make it all grand and gorgeous and warm and custom-sound-systemed and French-infused. A good foundation job doesn't come cheap, and neither does finishing a basement-media-room-au-pair-wine-cellar deal, getting Harry Potter to bless your yard, or French infusion, so I wouldn't be surprised if the home improvements since 2004 total north of $150,000, which is again nothing to sneeze at.
The problem, however, is that $1M + whatever French infusion et al. cost bring the total amount to recoup when you want (need?) to sell way, way, way out of line with, well, pretty much anything on the island. One issue the owners may not have planned for is that the lower level improvements don't count towards your legal square footage if they're not, well, legal, as in tall enough and/or accompanied with whatever the city wants you to provide when you make yourself a big ol' house (I'm not implying the owners didn't do this by the book; there's an extensive permit history available over chez the 'skys and I'm not seeing anything untoward here; you may want to check for yourself at www.velocityhall.com; no direct link). But as far as I can tell from the language in the foundation permit, the basement job was never intended for living space (emphasis mine):
What that means is that your price per sqft isn't $1.39M / 3,100 = $448 (assuming the basement is the same size as the main floor, roughly), but instead a much less palatable $671, which I don't believe has been fetched by any property of any size at any point in the past four years (and almost certainly not the past two). For context, it is 12% higher than the next-highest listings (on a per-sqft basis) currently on the market, one of which has been sitting there unsold for 75 days. At any rate, however, even $448 is pushing the envelope given recent market trends. And there's no garage.
Another way of looking at this issue is by comparing this property to its aforementioned neighbor. Let's do some comparison shopping:
That's a really long way to say the odds this listing will fetch anywhere close to its asking price are below zero.
Update 8/1/2010: Price dropped to $1,200,000. It needs another $400,000 at the very least to be competitive.
1831 San Jose is a very pretty Victorian (although I personally ogled its roof and siding a week or two ago, and let me tell you neither looks all that great, but then again I'm not a roofer, sider, or home inspector, so for all I know it's all brand new and I need new glasses). It sits semi-grandly in the famed Leonardville district, named after a prolific and talented builder of the late-ish 1800s, surrounded by other Victorians with varying degrees of grandness (the corner-lotted one east of today's property is particularly magnificent, and huge).
It's large-ish (2,072 sqft) on a decent sized lot (6,600 sqft) and sports 5 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms, which is nothing to sneeze at. The listing claims 3 levels, but it's not clear whether the "lower level" (frequently, and equivalently, referred to as "basement") meets all the city's criteria for regular living space (e.g. the city has stringent requirements on parking availability for any unit or subset of a larger home to be counted as living space, over and above what the building code requires in terms of ceiling height and such). 2,072 sqft isn't a small home, but by way of comparison its prenominate easterly neighbor at 1835 San Jose is over twice as large, with 8 bedrooms in 4,761 sqft of Victorian goodness standing unarguably grandly on a large corner lot. The property does look very pretty in its Craigslist photos, and the yard is quite a sight (the agent calls it "magical"). The listing agent also describes the kitchen as "French-infused", which may have been achieved by steeping French chefs in hot water for some period of time and spraying the infusion throughout the room using elegant little perfume spritzers (the listing doesn't specify if that is indeed the process the owners used to French-infuse their kitchen). However that French infusion was arrived at, it seems to involve hanging your pots from a ceiling rack, commissioning your appliances from Solingen, and julienning your veggies on very shiny stone slabs. In other words, French infusion is indistinguishable from every other splurge kitchen financed by home equity withdrawals between 2003 and 2006 in the continental United States, at least to the untrained eye:
The price tag for this medium-sized hunk of gorgeosity is a mere $1,390,000. The current owners (over)paid a cool million back in 2004, and proceeded to sink beaucoup bucks into la maison to make it all grand and gorgeous and warm and custom-sound-systemed and French-infused. A good foundation job doesn't come cheap, and neither does finishing a basement-media-room-au-pair-wine-cellar deal, getting Harry Potter to bless your yard, or French infusion, so I wouldn't be surprised if the home improvements since 2004 total north of $150,000, which is again nothing to sneeze at.The problem, however, is that $1M + whatever French infusion et al. cost bring the total amount to recoup when you want (need?) to sell way, way, way out of line with, well, pretty much anything on the island. One issue the owners may not have planned for is that the lower level improvements don't count towards your legal square footage if they're not, well, legal, as in tall enough and/or accompanied with whatever the city wants you to provide when you make yourself a big ol' house (I'm not implying the owners didn't do this by the book; there's an extensive permit history available over chez the 'skys and I'm not seeing anything untoward here; you may want to check for yourself at www.velocityhall.com; no direct link). But as far as I can tell from the language in the foundation permit, the basement job was never intended for living space (emphasis mine):
(ALL WORK IN BASEMENT) R/R FOUNDATION, BRICK TO CONCRETE; EXCAVATE BASEMENT TO 8'2" CEILING HEIGHT FOR STORAGE ONLY (ONE LIGHT, ONE SWITCH AND ONE PLUG IN STORAGE AREAS); DIVIDE LAUNDRY AREA & INSTALL UNDERGROUND PLUMBING FOR FUTURE FULL BATH; BUILD NON-BEARING WALLS TO CREATE UTILITY ROOM & WINE STORAGE ROOM; ADD 2 STEPS TO EXISTING INTERIOR STAIRWAY; INSTALL NEW WATER HEATER, FURNACE & SUMP PUMP - NO EXTERIOR CHANGES (BLDG/ELEC/PLUM/MECH)
What that means is that your price per sqft isn't $1.39M / 3,100 = $448 (assuming the basement is the same size as the main floor, roughly), but instead a much less palatable $671, which I don't believe has been fetched by any property of any size at any point in the past four years (and almost certainly not the past two). For context, it is 12% higher than the next-highest listings (on a per-sqft basis) currently on the market, one of which has been sitting there unsold for 75 days. At any rate, however, even $448 is pushing the envelope given recent market trends. And there's no garage.
Another way of looking at this issue is by comparing this property to its aforementioned neighbor. Let's do some comparison shopping:
- To my right, a beautiful 4,761-sqft, 8-bedroom Victorian on a 8,800-sqft corner lot, sold for $1,390,000 near the peak of a bubbly real estate market
- To my left, a beautiful 2,072-sqft, 5-bedroom Victorian on a 6,600-sqft lot with neighbors on both side, listed at $1,390,000 near the trough of an epic, unprecedented nationwide real estate meltdown accompanied by substantial price cuts in essentially every neighborhood in every city in every state.
That's a really long way to say the odds this listing will fetch anywhere close to its asking price are below zero.
Update 8/1/2010: Price dropped to $1,200,000. It needs another $400,000 at the very least to be competitive.
Miraculously, 1201 Peach Street just dropped its price by $50,000 today. It now sits at $949,000, and is no longer FSBO--José Cerda-Zein is now representing the property.
It's also spamming Craigslist considerably less these days. It used to pop up almost every weekend, twice (until Craigslist viewers flagged it down), and return the following weekend, twice, like clockwork.
One particularly charming feature of this property, in addition to the wood paneling inside, is the daring blend of fish scale siding on top and tan stucco on the bottom.
More details at the original post from September 2008.
It's also spamming Craigslist considerably less these days. It used to pop up almost every weekend, twice (until Craigslist viewers flagged it down), and return the following weekend, twice, like clockwork.One particularly charming feature of this property, in addition to the wood paneling inside, is the daring blend of fish scale siding on top and tan stucco on the bottom.
More details at the original post from September 2008.Update 9/15/2010: Now pending, listed at $768,000. Wow.
Today's listing is just plain weird. 1616 Clement Avenue has the following specs:
lovely location near the end of Hibbard street (you may remember its almost-neighbor 1810 Hibbard) is truly "superb" if you like old metal buildings (hint: pan the map around a bit):
View Larger Map
The neighborhood is "nice" if you enjoy proximity to large metal containers:
The sale history is even weirder:
Even at the peak of the market I can't think of very many properties that appreciated more than 20% annually, yet this house sold for almost double its initial price in just three years.
If you're interested in this property, just remember to speak clearly and slowly.
3 bedrooms, 2 1/2 bathrooms, 2,078 sqft, 3,195-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40453780, $699,000The
7 year old lovely home in Marina Cove Nice neighborhood. .upstairs den cld be 4th bdrm, luxurious bath, hardwood floor, spacious fam rm, [...] superb location. .speak clearly and slowly when leaving messages.
View Larger Map
The neighborhood is "nice" if you enjoy proximity to large metal containers:
The sale history is even weirder:
Property History for 1616 Clement Ave
| Date | Event | Price |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 03, 2010 | Listed | $699,000 |
|
| Jun 21, 2007 | Sold (Public Records) | $1,185,545 |
|
| Jun 24, 2004 | Sold (Public Records) | $659,000 |
Even at the peak of the market I can't think of very many properties that appreciated more than 20% annually, yet this house sold for almost double its initial price in just three years.
If you're interested in this property, just remember to speak clearly and slowly.
Guess who's back? Our old friend the unsellable 1626 Alameda Avenue! It now sports a shiny new lower price ($925,000) to go with its new MLS(r) ID (40453300) and its new agent (Andrea Gordon, picking up after Carol Burnett; whose site is down; here's a cached copy).
Please refer to the original post for details, or Chez Neumansky's detailed tour summary for a first-hand account of the place.
Please refer to the original post for details, or Chez Neumansky's detailed tour summary for a first-hand account of the place.
Real estate agents are not renowned for the quality of their copy. Agents with English as their second language will get a lot of slack from me, because it's not easy being functional in a foreign country. That said, a home seller has every right to expect their property to be represented in the best possible light, and if that includes paying a professional photographer for nice outdoor shots or slipping a $20 to a starving English major at Alameda College to proofread marketing copy, it's the bare minimum an agent should be held to, regardless of their proficiency in any language. Especially if they stand to make a $60,000 commission from that same seller.
Which is why, for the life of me, I can't fathom why the owners of 26 Castlebar Place, a 4,062-sqft house on the bay with a fantastic view (MLS(r) #40443065) that almost makes up for its spectacularly hideous interior, haven't summarily dismissed the agent presumably responsible for this wretched monstrosity of a listing, reproduced here from Craigslist in its entirety, complete with a photo of said agent in lieu of the property. Emphasis added for extra oomph.
In addition to the horrendous English, the virtual tour link is dead.
I fully expect hate mail calling me a racist for picking on poor Victoria's broken English, completely missing the point I am making here (never mind that I myself could very well have been raised in the exact same town as Victoria)--I don't care of you've got a PhD in classics, Wernicke's aphasia, or 2 years of Berlitz English courses under your belt, you simply do not advertise a $2M house like this. It's beyond unprofessional.
The official MLS(r) listing, by Tina Wong, is not great but considerably better, and somewhat imaginatively worded (emphasis added):
Update 12/31/09: Victoria's back.
Which is why, for the life of me, I can't fathom why the owners of 26 Castlebar Place, a 4,062-sqft house on the bay with a fantastic view (MLS(r) #40443065) that almost makes up for its spectacularly hideous interior, haven't summarily dismissed the agent presumably responsible for this wretched monstrosity of a listing, reproduced here from Craigslist in its entirety, complete with a photo of said agent in lieu of the property. Emphasis added for extra oomph.
$1999000 / 4br - Exquisite Taste In Living (alameda) (map)
Date: 2009-12-28, 3:34PM PST
Reply to: [redacted]This property has the most enchanting design. "Outstanding" describes this exquisite custom built home which situated in the best area of Alameda! Approx. 4062 living square feet huge home on a 4800 square feet lot. 2 Stories facing the bay, views are amazing when you care how to enjoy life! patio from master is dainty designed as the bow of a ship!PostingID: 1528128763
round Glass Ceiling in the central of the house aborting blue skylight come along with an extraordinary stair shows impressive style precisely. Pragmatic kitchen has its' open dinning area. Built-In Walkie-Talkie throughout the house with gas heated fireplace. Split up section of entertainment, relaxation and a parlor. One bedroom downstairs may be utilized as an office or guestroom with full bathroom off rear. In additional, there is cubbholes for storages under the chairs appear like inhabited solely in a cruise.
* Totally 4 huge bedrooms joined with a spacious family room
* Grand bathroom and walk in closing in expansive master Suite
* Gleaming hardwood floor through out the whole house
* Granite shower stall and marble tile flooring in all bathrooms
* Unique circular shape hallway
* Two car attached garage with storage space
* Wonderful Alameda neighborhood and school district
* Charming and Fresh Feeling, This is the dream home that you have been waiting!
Please E Mail to Victoria Lam at [redacted] for additional information and view the photos by clicking: http://odc.rw.imprev.net/tmp/31/531/8693/
OPEN HOUSE THIS SUNDAY FROM 1-4P.M., SELLER'S MOTIVATE, DON'T MISS THE CHANCE!
26 Castlebar Place
- it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
In addition to the horrendous English, the virtual tour link is dead.
I fully expect hate mail calling me a racist for picking on poor Victoria's broken English, completely missing the point I am making here (never mind that I myself could very well have been raised in the exact same town as Victoria)--I don't care of you've got a PhD in classics, Wernicke's aphasia, or 2 years of Berlitz English courses under your belt, you simply do not advertise a $2M house like this. It's beyond unprofessional.
The official MLS(r) listing, by Tina Wong, is not great but considerably better, and somewhat imaginatively worded (emphasis added):
This impeccably designed luxury home offers unparalleled view of the bay & its unique design has brought the outside scenery into this voyager. Ample natural lighting via large windows & centre circular dome roof; ea. window assembles a live moving picture, must see to appreciate.So I don't know what exactly happened to allow that train wreck of a Craigslist post to go live, but someone dropped the ball, and I felt it my duty to bring this to the sellers' attention. Given the property's sale history, it's likely they need to squeeze every penny out of this sale, and this shameful listing sure isn't helping.
Property History for 26 CASTLEBAR Pl
| Date | Event | Price |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 21, 2009 | Listed | $1,999,000 |
| Dec 16, 2003 | Sold (Public Records) | $1,890,000 |
| Nov 29, 1989 | Sold (Public Records) | $345,000 |
Update 12/31/09: Victoria's back.
$1990000 / 4br - Outstanding Custom Built 4000sq.ft. Big House (alameda) (map)
Date: 2009-12-31, 1:26PM PST
Reply to: [redacted]
This property has the most enchanting design. "Outstanding" describes this exquisite custom built home which situated in the best area of Alameda! Approx. 4062 living square feet huge home on a 4800 square feet lot. 2 Stories facing the bay, views are amazing when you care how to enjoy life! patio from master is dainty designed as the bow of a ship!
round Glass Ceiling in the central of the house aborting blue skylight come along with an extraordinary stair shows impressive style precisely. Pragmatic kitchen has its' open dinning area. Built-In Walkie-Talkie throughout the house with gas heated fireplace. Split up section of entertainment, relaxation and a parlor. One bedroom downstairs may be utilized as an office or guestroom with full bathroom off rear. In additional, there is cubbholes for storages under the chairs appear like inhabited solely in a cruise.
* Totally 4 huge bedrooms joined with a spacious family room
* Grand bathroom and walk in closing in expansive master Suite
* Gleaming hardwood floor through out the whole house
* Granite shower stall and marble tile flooring in all bathrooms
* Unique circular shape hallway
* Two car attached garage with storage space
* Wonderful Alameda neighborhood and school district
* Charming and Fresh Feeling, This is the dream home that you have been waiting!
Please E Mail to Victoria Lam at Celestialinv@yahoo.com for additional information and view the photos by clicking: http://odc.rw.imprev.net/tmp/31/531/8693/
OPEN HOUSE THIS SUNDAY FROM 1-4P.M., SELLER'S MOTIVATE, DON'T MISS THE CHANCE! E-Mail to : Celestialinv@yahoo.com for pictures.
26 Castlebar Place (google map) (yahoo map)
Hi everybody!
1304 Morton Street finally sold in early December for $938,000, according to Redfin.
In summary:
The extent and quality of the renovation work on top of the previous sale price (above $500,000) means the now former owners likely didn't make their money back on the transaction.
The moral of the story? Don't over-improve, and don't spend 6 figures on your kitchen.
That's a $312,000 price drop from the initial list price (about 25%) and 20 months on the market. I trust Redfin won't begrudge me a full history:
1304 Morton Street finally sold in early December for $938,000, according to Redfin.
In summary:
- April 2008: 1304 Morton St appears on the market, listed at $1,250,000
- July 2008: the price is dropped to $1,199,000
- September 2008: the price is dropped to $1,150,000
- March 2009, almost a year after the initial listing, the property is relisted for $975,000
- August 2009: the price is dropped to $949,999
- December 2009: the property closes for $938,000
The extent and quality of the renovation work on top of the previous sale price (above $500,000) means the now former owners likely didn't make their money back on the transaction.
The moral of the story? Don't over-improve, and don't spend 6 figures on your kitchen.
That's a $312,000 price drop from the initial list price (about 25%) and 20 months on the market. I trust Redfin won't begrudge me a full history:
Property History for 1304 MORTON St
| Date | Event | Price | Appreciation | Source |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 02, 2009 | Sold (MLS) | $938,000 | -- | Inactive MLSListings #80911577 |
|
| Nov 12, 2009 | Delisted | -- | -- | Inactive MLSListings #80911577 |
|
| Sep 22, 2009 | Delisted | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #4 |
|
| Aug 21, 2009 | Price Changed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #4 |
|
| Aug 21, 2009 | Price Changed | $949,999 | -- | Inactive MLSListings #80911577 |
|
| Mar 10, 2009 | Listed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #4 |
|
| Mar 06, 2009 | Listed | $975,000 | -- | Inactive MLSListings #80911577 |
|
| Jan 01, 2009 | Delisted | * | -- | Inactive San Francisco MLS #1 |
|
| Nov 21, 2008 | Delisted | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #3 |
|
| Nov 20, 2008 | Delisted | -- | -- | Inactive MLSListings #2 |
|
| Jul 22, 2008 | Listed | * | -- | Inactive San Francisco MLS #1 |
|
| Jul 21, 2008 | Price Changed | -- | -- | Inactive MLSListings #2 |
|
| Jul 19, 2008 | Price Changed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #3 |
|
| Jun 11, 2008 | Price Changed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #3 |
|
| Jun 11, 2008 | Price Changed | -- | -- | Inactive MLSListings #2 |
|
| May 02, 2008 | Listed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #3 |
|
| Apr 25, 2008 | Listed | -- | -- | Inactive MLSListings #2 |
A recent sale on Broadway is of great interest for market-watchers.
912 Broadway has the following specs and delicious first-person description:
Recent screen captures indicate this house was still on the market until recently, and remained for sale for close to two whole years (look at the list date):
912 Broadway has the following specs and delicious first-person description:
4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, ~1,760 sqft, 5,120-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40301101, listed at $875,000An alternative listing has a slightly less cute wording:
LOVE TO ENTERTAIN PEOPLE? I am a perfect house for you. I have a beautiful backyard with a gorgeous lagoon, hardwood floor throughout, and a livng room with fireplace to cozy up on those cold winter nights.
Buried in Redfin's data, you might also notice very reasonable annual HOA dues ($475, or ~$40 / month).
Gorgeous lagoon home. Open floor plan, updated kitchen with granite counter tops/marble floors/stainless steel appl. Beautiful garden for entertaining. Excellent location, walking distance to beach, shopping center and transportation.
Recent screen captures indicate this house was still on the market until recently, and remained for sale for close to two whole years (look at the list date):
The sale history on Zillow shows one recent transaction in 2002, for $609,000.According to multiple sources, this property finally sold for $600,000. That's $9,000 + probably $30,000 or so in commissions below the previous transaction price, and a whole 31% off the last list price.
The moral of the story? If an agent tries to talk you out of lowball offers, or says she doesn't want to insult the seller, fire her at once.
The trashed two-houses-on-one-lot dealio at 547 Pacific Avenue is back as MLS(r) #40435505 with the following description:
I wonder if you're you expected to live in the "stripped to rafters" unit while renting the unit that needs major repairs, or the other way around? Either way, it sounds like a great-quality-of-life, high-cash-flow situation, doesn't it?
The transaction history is amusing:
It looks as though the repossessing back is trying to turn a slight profit on the sale this time around.
Fixer---two houses on one lot. Second is stripped to rafters. First needs major repairs. Great for the investor or handyman. Live in one-rent the other.
I wonder if you're you expected to live in the "stripped to rafters" unit while renting the unit that needs major repairs, or the other way around? Either way, it sounds like a great-quality-of-life, high-cash-flow situation, doesn't it?The transaction history is amusing:
| Date | Event | Price |
|---|---|---|
| Oct 23, 2009 | Listed | $485,100 |
| Aug 19, 2009 | Sold | $412,000 |
| Jun 29, 2006 | Sold | $655,000 |
| Apr 03, 1987 | Sold | $175,000 |
It looks as though the repossessing back is trying to turn a slight profit on the sale this time around.
Today's new Bayport McMansion is a fine, fine example of what not to do during an asset bubble. 318 Lina Avenue has the following specs:
View Larger Map
The sale history speaks for itself:
That's 27% off the initial price. Not bad.
4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, 3,150 sqft, 3,840-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40435548, $825,000 (plus $119 / mo HOA dues)
Exceptional price for this stunning Malpeque model at Bayport. Highly upgraded w/ onyx and wood flooring, Thermador S/S appliances, maple cabinetry throughout, [...] surround sound and so much more. ..
View Larger Map
The sale history speaks for itself:
Property History for 318 LINA Ave
| Date | Event | Price |
|---|---|---|
| Oct 23, 2009 | Listed | $825,000 |
| Dec 20, 2006 | Sold | $1,136,000 |
That's 27% off the initial price. Not bad.
The pointy-hat Victorian at 1009 Central is back as MLS(r) #40429761 with a new, slightly lower price of $460,750, down from $499,000 last March. Please refer to the original post for details.
Here's a summary of the listing activity since 2005:
Here's a summary of the listing activity since 2005:
Property History for 1009 CENTRAL Ave
| Date | Event | Price |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 16, 2009 | Listed | $460,750 |
| Jul 31, 2009 | Sold | $432,000 |
| Jun 04, 2009 | Delisted | * |
| May 27, 2009 | Relisted | * |
| Apr 01, 2009 | Delisted | * |
| Mar 21, 2009 | Listed | * |
| Aug 04, 2005 | Sold | $700,000 |
While we're on the subject of financially-inept imprudent home buyers, this week's new post-Victorian "duplex" at 1549 Bay Street stands as another fine example of what not to do when considering a home purchase. First the specs:
The discrepancy in the number of bedrooms and bathrooms between the listing and the public records is likely due to a conversion of what once was a modest single-family home to a duplex in 1940, presumably not permitted, which was amnestied by the city in 1999 (permit #B99-1696) but not reflected in the county records To their credit, the house's successive owners over the years appear to have obtained and finaled permits for a lot of the work performed on the house, which sadly can't be said of a lot of properties in Alameda. Of course a permit alone doesn't guarantee quality or durability, but at least it safeguards the next owner from having to clean up the permit history with the city or having to tear down a bunch of unwarranted improvements.
The MLS(r) photos show a pretty house in good condition, but fail to point out its proximity to large-ish buildings on both sides of Bay Street (Pagano's hardware mart on the same side and a market/liquor store across the street).
The tiny 3,300-sqft lot doesn't provide much protection against the elements and the very busy section of Lincoln just a few hundred feet to the north.
Having established all that, then, you may be interested to know the previous owner, just 4 years ago, spent $810,000 to purchase this property ($579 / sqft).
I wish that were a typo. Maybe it is. Assuming the house sells near asking price, which it just might (although spring fever has died down considerably), we're looking at a 34% drop in value in just 4 years. Alameda is different, innit?
Update 1/10/10: Sold to a newborn sucka for $555,000.
3 (or 5?) bedrooms, 1 (or 1 1/2) bathroom(s), 1,398 sqft, 3,300-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40430026, $534,900 ($383 / sqft)
REO bargain priced below comps. Move in condition, [...] Victorian era home with 4 bdrms, 2+ baths, full height attic with extra room, plus a 1 bdrm unit below. [...] a remarkable find.
The discrepancy in the number of bedrooms and bathrooms between the listing and the public records is likely due to a conversion of what once was a modest single-family home to a duplex in 1940, presumably not permitted, which was amnestied by the city in 1999 (permit #B99-1696) but not reflected in the county records To their credit, the house's successive owners over the years appear to have obtained and finaled permits for a lot of the work performed on the house, which sadly can't be said of a lot of properties in Alameda. Of course a permit alone doesn't guarantee quality or durability, but at least it safeguards the next owner from having to clean up the permit history with the city or having to tear down a bunch of unwarranted improvements.
The MLS(r) photos show a pretty house in good condition, but fail to point out its proximity to large-ish buildings on both sides of Bay Street (Pagano's hardware mart on the same side and a market/liquor store across the street).
The tiny 3,300-sqft lot doesn't provide much protection against the elements and the very busy section of Lincoln just a few hundred feet to the north.Having established all that, then, you may be interested to know the previous owner, just 4 years ago, spent $810,000 to purchase this property ($579 / sqft).
Property History for 1549 BAY St
| Date | Event | Price |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 18, 2009 | Listed | $534,900 |
| Jun 04, 2009 | Sold | $496,100 |
| Jun 23, 2005 | Sold | $810,000 |
| Jun 27, 1988 | Sold | $170,000 |
I wish that were a typo. Maybe it is. Assuming the house sells near asking price, which it just might (although spring fever has died down considerably), we're looking at a 34% drop in value in just 4 years. Alameda is different, innit?
Update 1/10/10: Sold to a newborn sucka for $555,000.
The "green" eco-friendly house at 1533 Morton Street has been on the market for a while, but only recently did it come to my attention it's highly deserving of a writeup on the blog, so here it is. Touted as a very advanced design with all sorts of ecologically sensible features, from solar panels to recycled or recyclable building materials, 1533 Morton St. has the following specs:
Why would that be? It looks great on paper--big lot, big house, all the right things for the well-heeled, environmentally conscious Bay Area buyer (if you talk to agents they'll tell you those wealthy San Francisco 30-somethings with 1 1/4 children are flocking to Alameda by the boatload), and an arguably reasonable price per square foot (in context; I'd never pay that much for anything, but given the way houses are priced in Alameda, it's priced reasonably well). The agent is clearly targeting that population:
With that in mind, some of the features of the property make you wonder whether they were indeed an enlightened decision on the architect's part:
All that being said, what I would like to know is who in their right mind would buy a high-end-ish eco house on half a lot (with no room for grass or trees), with a big ol' antique owned by someone else in the way of street access. And be willing to deal with the indignities of a monthly $50 HOA fee. If this and the front house were marketed as one of those two-houses-on-one-lot deals, and priced at $990,000 for the pair, it might be different, although I have a hard time imagining how the mortgage works out assuming you rent one or the other; these are pretty distinctive properties catering to a very small pool of potential tenants, so vacancy rates would likely be high.
Did anybody at the design firm that perpetrated this dual monstrosity do a market analysis before creating not one but two unsellable white elephants?
Lastly, one thing that's been bothering me for a long time is how agents for large houses often boast of potential "au-pair" quarters. Who keeps au-pairs in 2009?
3 bedrooms, 3 1/2 bathrooms, 1,500 sqft, ~6,100-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40404178, $899,000At $360 / sqft, it's almost priced correctly, and you'd think with all those green features and potential energy savings, it'd be gone by now. But it's not--it's been on the market for almost 5 months as 8/29/09, and dropped its price from $969,000 to $899,000 on July 1.
ALAMEDA'S 1ST NEW "GREEN" INFILL. [...] UBER ENVIRONMENTAL HOME. NEWLY CONSTRUCTED "SOLAR" l GREEN HOME EMBELLISHES TODAY'S HIGHLY COVETED GREEN DESIGN. [...] GREAT HOME OFFICE, GUEST ROOM OR AUPAIR.
Why would that be? It looks great on paper--big lot, big house, all the right things for the well-heeled, environmentally conscious Bay Area buyer (if you talk to agents they'll tell you those wealthy San Francisco 30-somethings with 1 1/4 children are flocking to Alameda by the boatload), and an arguably reasonable price per square foot (in context; I'd never pay that much for anything, but given the way houses are priced in Alameda, it's priced reasonably well). The agent is clearly targeting that population:
Both the Environmental Home and the immaculately restored Historic Home are located on one large lot, contiguous to the Gold Coast region of Alameda. The highly recognized Alameda Schools are within close proximity, as well as parks, markets, shops and restaurants. Take the Ferry, BART or Bus to San Francisco. Ferry Ride takes only 20 relaxing minutes. A beautiful commute.Maybe the fact that there's a big tall 3,700-sqft house on the narrow 6,100-sqft lot RIGHT IN FRONT OF THIS PROPERTY is giving potential buyers pause (note the helpful sign pointing to today's house on the front lawn; I wonder if you're allowed to keep it after you buy to help direct your friends to your housewarming party):
(photo courtesy of reader C.F. Thanks!)
With that in mind, some of the features of the property make you wonder whether they were indeed an enlightened decision on the architect's part:
In an educated effort, the architect opted to place the home’s public rooms one story above ground in order to take advantage of natural light, heat and views, while the ground level cleverly gives way to the perfect space for au pair quarters, additional family room, gymnasium or a Zen garden retreat. The uppermost level holds spacious, light-filled and naturally air-conditioned sleeping quarters.... or merely an attempt to cope with the inevitability of a very large building mere feet away across the lot, perhaps blocking some of the sunlight during the day? Maybe one of those pesky city regulations requiring enough parking for everyone caused the designer to say "I know! Let's put the maid and the car below the house! That way we have parking, and the solar panels can actually see the sun part of the time! This house will sell in minutes!"
All that being said, what I would like to know is who in their right mind would buy a high-end-ish eco house on half a lot (with no room for grass or trees), with a big ol' antique owned by someone else in the way of street access. And be willing to deal with the indignities of a monthly $50 HOA fee. If this and the front house were marketed as one of those two-houses-on-one-lot deals, and priced at $990,000 for the pair, it might be different, although I have a hard time imagining how the mortgage works out assuming you rent one or the other; these are pretty distinctive properties catering to a very small pool of potential tenants, so vacancy rates would likely be high.
Did anybody at the design firm that perpetrated this dual monstrosity do a market analysis before creating not one but two unsellable white elephants?
Lastly, one thing that's been bothering me for a long time is how agents for large houses often boast of potential "au-pair" quarters. Who keeps au-pairs in 2009?
Everybody probably knows about the enormous house on a giant lot at 1221 Sherman, which recently dropped its price by almost $1M all at once.
Turns out it's a short sale, at least according to Redfin.
What really has me scratching my head is this:
Bought 17 years ago, this house should be half paid off. Back then, loan underwriting still followed some standards, by and large, so let's assume a classic 80% LTV mortgage, rounding up to a $600,000 loan. 17 years later, the owners might owe $400,000. Yet here we are with a short sale listed at $1,569,000, which suggests about $1.2M or more has been added to the loan balance. I shudder to think that the initial list price ($2,488,905) was actually the current balance.
So I ask, how is that possible??!
Turns out it's a short sale, at least according to Redfin.
What really has me scratching my head is this:
Property History for 1221 Sherman St
| Date | Event | Price |
|---|---|---|
| Jul 16, 2009 | Price Changed | $1,569,000 |
| Jul 07, 2009 | Listed | $2,488,905 |
| Mar 20, 1992 | Sold | $739,000 |
Bought 17 years ago, this house should be half paid off. Back then, loan underwriting still followed some standards, by and large, so let's assume a classic 80% LTV mortgage, rounding up to a $600,000 loan. 17 years later, the owners might owe $400,000. Yet here we are with a short sale listed at $1,569,000, which suggests about $1.2M or more has been added to the loan balance. I shudder to think that the initial list price ($2,488,905) was actually the current balance.
So I ask, how is that possible??!
My oh my, prices have been busy dropping left and right while I wasn't paying attention writing about them. Here's a selective summary.
There are more, of course, but more on that later.
- The ugly custom Scarface house at 514 Westline Drive dropped its price multiple times. It's now a new (hah) listing with MLS(r) #40421430, priced at $1,098,000, and a short sale. Its last sale date when it was brand new just three years ago was $1,488,000. I guess that wasn't one of those lucky 8s. Assuming it sells for the current list price, that's a 26% loss, in case your calculator is broken.
- A newish listing at 1221 Sherman St, huge and overrun by expensive clutter inside and out, was initially listed for a hilarious $2,488,905 (note the extra five bucks tacked on at the end there) with MLS(r) 40418269 and dropped its price by almost a million all at once in mid July, to a still-too-high $1,569,000. The description is amusing as well:
[...] Lots of living space; great for entertaining: wedding, tea party, wine tasting... [...]
Given how often people tend to have weddings, it makes you wonder if the agent is suggesting a side business for the would-be owners to help pay the oversized mortgage. Dan and Irene have a writeup on their blog that seems to agree with my horror at the clutter oozing from the MLS(r) photos. Packing and moving all that stuff out is going to cost a fortune. And as for the initial $2.5M price tag, perhaps the owners and the agent realized that of those few people who can drop that kind of money on a house, not a whole lot of 'em decide to live in our little town. The highest-priced sales I can remember are the enormous bocce ball court on St Charles and the gigantic, fantastically laid-out Victorian compound at 1723-1725 Central, and those were only about $2M (each, sadly). Update: a short sale (?!?).
- The apparently unsellable "mansion" at 1626 Alameda Avenue miraculously dropped its price and now stands unsold at $950,000. Dan and Irene have a writeup on this one as well that points out some serious potential issues with the property's permit history, among other things.
- The super-classy trailer park Victorian at 1609 Lincoln (the one with the coin-op laundry facilities) has dropped to $899,000. It's been on the market for ages now. $899,000 is only $9,000 over the last purchase price back in 2005.
- The oddly-shaped 709 Haight Avenue is sticking to its highly-successful strategy of multiple, itty-bitty price drops:
07/21/09: $419,900 to $414,900
07/21/09: $414,900 to $399,000
07/29/09: $399,000 to $389,000
We know how well that worked out back when it was$624,900$614,900$609,900$589,900$569,900$504,900.
- The giant red-tagged wreck at 855 Cedar Street dropped its price from $935,000 to $885,000. There is no chance in hell this is selling for a penny over $500K, and even that would be completely insane given how much work it will require. Check out the big photos on Zillow to get a sense of how ruined this property is. I walked by a few months ago and was struck by what looks like years, if not decades, of complete neglect and abandon, sealed by the red tags on the boarded-up front door. It's a real shame, because the woodwork in the interior photos looks as though the house could be truly magnificent (not to mention huge; 4,810 sqft of living space on a big lot). This one breaks my heart a little. Zillow has it listed at $790,000, so at this rate there's hope for a more reasonable price in 10-12 years or so.
There are more, of course, but more on that later.
Miscellaneous