Listings: February 2009 Archives
I didn't write about an ugly, overpriced 1960s 2-level rancher on the lagoon at 604 Westline Drive (the $848,000 "jewel at Crown Beach" 4+3) when it came on the market a few months ago because, frankly, I much prefer to look at pretty Victorians. Its yard sign claimed the property was pending for a while, but it was listed for sale on Zillow 7 days ago, so it might still be available. Shortly after 604 was listed, a big new-ish home at 514 Westline came on the market, and now a third listing has arrived in the past few days, so this brewing epidemic should probably be documented.
616 Westline is an ugly rancher with the following specs:
616 Westline is an ugly rancher with the following specs:
5 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, 2 floors, 2,260 sqft, 3,650-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40396342, $779,000It's plenty ugly, although the inside redeems the exterior a bit:$779000 / 5br - Five Bedroom Lagoon Home (alameda) (map)
Reply to: quinn@bayside-realestate.com
Date: 2009-02-27, 9:56PM PST
Open Sunday, 2pm - 4pm
Year Built 1965 Sq Footage 2,260 Bedrooms 5 Bathrooms 3 full, 0 partial Floors 2 Parking 2 Car garage Lot Size 3,650 sqft HOA/Maint $475 per year
DESCRIPTION
Enjoy your own private dock on the lagoon. Relax in the spacious master suite or read a book on its lagoon-view balcony. The bright living/dining room has a gas fireplace and double sliding glass doors opening on to a balcony overlooking Crown State Park. Sunsets are spectacular!
A large interior laundry room with sink makes laundry a snap. The versatile bonus room offers many possibilities. Convenient attached 2 car garage with interior access.
Across the street from Crown State Park and Beach, close to Webster Street and Towne Center shopping.
604 Westline (now pending) has the following specs:
604 has one fewer bedroom than 616, yet it was priced $69,000 higher; the lot is larger, but not $69,000 larger.
Interestingly, 604 has probably been owned for a long time (I couldn't find its sale history), but 616 is a much more recent transaction:
4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, 2,300 sqft, 6,270-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40373937, $848,000It is just as ugly, with that loathsome, hideous, despicable stone-chunk chimney typical of that tasteless era:
Grab your flip-flops and beach towel and head straight to this 4 bedroom, 3 bath home [...] just steps from the beach. A wall of windows offers views of Crown Beach and beyond. From the master suite, savor the views of the lagoon and boat dock.Built in 1965, this desirable home sits on an approximate 6,270 square foot lot [...] large bonus room with wet bar, built in vacuum system and dumb waiter. Yes, the kitchen is on the second floor [...] The beautifully landscaped gardens offer a quiet retreat. [...]
604 has one fewer bedroom than 616, yet it was priced $69,000 higher; the lot is larger, but not $69,000 larger. Interestingly, 604 has probably been owned for a long time (I couldn't find its sale history), but 616 is a much more recent transaction:
Assuming it sells at its excessive list price of $779,000 ($344 / sqft), and 6% commission for the agents, we're looking at $108,000 down the lagoon in just 3 1/2 years, which works out to about $80 per spectacular sunset. From that perspective, the longer it stays on the market, the cheaper the sunset (assuming a constant list price).Sales History
Sale History & Tax Info Sale History 07/29/2005: $840,000 04/07/2000: $381,500 No other sale data is available
Right next door to a duplex covered twice on this blog stands the sad Victorian at 1813 Sherman, which just came on the market as MLS(r) #40397301, although you'll have to hand over your registration information to an MLS site, or just pay attention (check out Redfin's URL) if you want to know where exactly it is. The specs:
low traffic, very little noise, and a lovely view to the owner and tenants:
Never mind that $599,000 for a small house that was never really intended to be a duplex might not be cash-flow positive for, what, 15 years, if that: the location alone should be enough to deter all but the dumbest savviest investor from purchasing this poor old thing.
It certainly was a great investment for the current owner:
duplex, 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 1,784 sqft, 3,125-sqft lot, MLS(r) #, $599,000 ($336 / sqft)The lot is tiny, and as you can see in the photo it seems to be all length. The Avocato trees must be hiding from the former fruit processing plant right across the street, which guarantees
Super clean, no defered maintenence. [...] top unit has access to finished attic. newer concrete foundation. [...] individually metered, and have washer and dryers in unit. [...] low maintanance building. Large back yard with mature Avocato trees.
Never mind that $599,000 for a small house that was never really intended to be a duplex might not be cash-flow positive for, what, 15 years, if that: the location alone should be enough to deter all but the It certainly was a great investment for the current owner:
I shudder at the thought they may have finished the attic to squeeze more rental income from their miniature Avocato plantation.Sales History
Sale History & Tax Info Sale History 09/22/2006: $570,000 10/20/1987: $66,000 * No other sale data is available * Transaction not included in Zestimate.
Boring property + misspelled street name + 94502 = a very uninspired blog post. In the interest of comprehensiveness, here's goes 56 Bannister Way, another one of Ringo Liu's notoriously snooze-inducing Bayfarm properties:
It's been listed for sale on Zillow since late January, and looks like a barely-break-even transaction if it sells for its current price:
Update 3/14/09: Be sure to go seeagent Izabella Lipetski this property at the open house this weekend.
Update 4/25/09: Dropped to $569,000.
3 bedrooms, 2 1/2 bathrooms, 1,625 sqft, 3,069-sqft lot, $599,000 ($369 / sqft)$599000 Harbor Bay bargain (alameda) (map)
Reply to: hous-1051927070@craigslist.org
Date: 2009-02-26, 6:30PM PST
Open floorplan w/high ceiling and lots of window. Spacious family room opens to kitchen. Gorgeous hardwood floors. 2-way firplace Sunny eat-in kitchen w/granite counters. Tranquil sunny backyard. Spacious driveway. Large mastersuite. Close to Ferry,Shoreline, and school. HOA pays ext,maint,ins,fr.yd
Ringo Liu
Harbor Bay Reality
(510) 913-1600
It's been listed for sale on Zillow since late January, and looks like a barely-break-even transaction if it sells for its current price:
Yawn.Last sale and tax info
- Sold 07/31/2003: $548,000
- 2008 Property Tax: $9,338
Update 3/14/09: Be sure to go see
Update 4/25/09: Dropped to $569,000.
A gorgeous 1880 Victorian at 2323 Buena Vista came on the market a little while ago, and I'd been waiting to take my own pictures so I could write a post worthy of the structure and its current condition. A reader (who shall remain anonymous; no, it wasn't I who took the pictures) was gracious enough to send me their own photos, used here by permission, so there's no reason to wait.
Today's glorious wreck has the following specs:
I couldn't find the lot size anywhere, but its neighbor to the east at 2327 Buena Vista is listed as sitting on 6,800 sqft (green border), and this property's lot (orange border) looks about one third larger (from Zillow):
Whoever is representing this property is likely from out of town, as it is not an "East End" Victorian--it's to the west of Park Street. The agent also conveniently omitted the large Chevron gas station at the very busy intersection two doors down (clearly visible in the Zillow map above).
It was once a fantastic, well-preserved, enormous house:
But somebody ran out of money, apparently, and left before completing renovation work in the back:
... or on the side:
The foundation work appears to be done:
But the lower level has no walls. And it's been raining. A lot.
The running-out-of-money hypothesis appears to be supported by the sale history:
Today's glorious wreck has the following specs:
multi-family (beds, baths unknown), 3,514 sqft, built in 1880, MLS(r) #40394635(Description excerpted from listing on Trulia).
Contractor needed to start and complete lower units of East End Victorian. Much potential. Plans and permit history unknown. No inspections or reports. Bank/ Seller will consider all offers.
I couldn't find the lot size anywhere, but its neighbor to the east at 2327 Buena Vista is listed as sitting on 6,800 sqft (green border), and this property's lot (orange border) looks about one third larger (from Zillow):
Whoever is representing this property is likely from out of town, as it is not an "East End" Victorian--it's to the west of Park Street. The agent also conveniently omitted the large Chevron gas station at the very busy intersection two doors down (clearly visible in the Zillow map above).It was once a fantastic, well-preserved, enormous house:
But somebody ran out of money, apparently, and left before completing renovation work in the back:... or on the side:The foundation work appears to be done:
But the lower level has no walls. And it's been raining. A lot. The running-out-of-money hypothesis appears to be supported by the sale history:
Sale History 10/29/2008: $466,200 * 06/17/2004: $745,000 * No other sale data is available * Transaction not included in Zestimate. More info
I really hope the bank does "consider all offers" and sells this beautiful building for well under $500,000 to someone who will give it the care it deserves, rather than wait until they get their insultingly obscene asking price of $694,900, which is about $350,000 too much.
Note to bank: walls are pretty important.
Update 3/11/09: Price dropped 28% to $499,900. Still too high. Note to bank: WALLS ARE PRETTY IMPORTANT.
Note to bank: walls are pretty important.
Update 3/11/09: Price dropped 28% to $499,900. Still too high. Note to bank: WALLS ARE PRETTY IMPORTANT.
Here's a blast from the past. 2438 Coral Sea Street is back as MLS(r) #40396836, at the same price it failed to sell a year ago ($799,000).
To minimize redundancy, please consult the original post for the skinny.
Update 8/30/09: Apparently sold for $750,000.
Update 1/10/10: Actually sold for $700,000.
To minimize redundancy, please consult the original post for the skinny.
Update 8/30/09: Apparently sold for $750,000.
Update 1/10/10: Actually sold for $700,000.
It is well established that NAR and the MLS(r) are not the most fair-playing, transparent or sharing of organizations, especially when it comes to relevant information regarding properties for sale. A number of independent sites have emerged to try to blow away the Balkanized, obfuscated, opaque system of rules and restrictions set up by NAR to maximally impede the free flow of information and keep home buyers from making informed decisions--after all, those might lead to lower sales prices or no sales at all if everything were disclosed and available to everyone, rather than artificially space-constrained and restricted in their distribution. It also allows for a cottage industry of compliance officers and lawyers to flourish, all of whom (or whose employers) probably pay NAR dues. The Realtor(tm) must be the final arbiter of what the consumer knows, for an informed customer is a harder patsy to hoodwink.
Today's listing is a particularly egregious example of the kind of downright consumer-hostile practices NAR and the MLS(r) revel in.
8 Dolphin Court came back on the market today. It is a mostly new McMansiony house on a business-card-sized lot:
know, nor do I much care, which one of these it is (it's the blue one on the right). It probably doesn't matter, because they're so close to each other you're practically living with your neighbor anyway:
It is also not far from many other monstrosities covered on this blog, which have fared remarkably well not done so great since their construction and initial sale:
One might think $599,000 for a somewhat large house is a decent deal, especially if one believes, as the MLS(r) probably hopes, that this is a new listing, priced to sell, with no issues whatever.
Because the address sounded familiar, I went to Redfin to refresh my memory, where I was greeted by the friendly admonishment below:
So in I sign, and for my trouble I am given the strategically redacted information below (emphasis added):
I don't blame Redfin; they're a broker and they can't not abide by MLS(r) rules if they want to stay in business. At this point I was becoming somewhat irritated, so I turned to an independent site with no vested interest in hiding information, namely Google, and I found this:
Luke Trif's site appeared to be malfunctioning at the time of this writing, but Google had a cached version showing the following data:
I can't ascertain the date, but the Google cached version says (emphasis added):
There'll be a party at the Opine compound once that antiquated, anti-free-market conglomerate finally disappears in a cloud of vampire dust.
Oh, and that property on Dolphin Court, yes, it's overpriced. Thanks for asking.
(bonus points if you can figure out the title of this post)
Update 9/28/09: Sold for $628,000. All hail Spring fever bidding wars in the worst economy, job market and real estate market in 80 years.
Today's listing is a particularly egregious example of the kind of downright consumer-hostile practices NAR and the MLS(r) revel in.
8 Dolphin Court came back on the market today. It is a mostly new McMansiony house on a business-card-sized lot:
3 bedrooms, 2 1/2 bathrooms, 2,035 sqft, 3,494-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40396446, $599,000I don'tWell Maintained Warmington Home [...] Great Corner Lot with beautiful flag stone back yard [...] Versatile Floor Plan. .. Stainless Steele Appliances. .. .SHOW and SALE
It is also not far from many other monstrosities covered on this blog, which have One might think $599,000 for a somewhat large house is a decent deal, especially if one believes, as the MLS(r) probably hopes, that this is a new listing, priced to sell, with no issues whatever.
Because the address sounded familiar, I went to Redfin to refresh my memory, where I was greeted by the friendly admonishment below:
So in I sign, and for my trouble I am given the strategically redacted information below (emphasis added):I don't blame Redfin; they're a broker and they can't not abide by MLS(r) rules if they want to stay in business. At this point I was becoming somewhat irritated, so I turned to an independent site with no vested interest in hiding information, namely Google, and I found this:Luke Trif's site appeared to be malfunctioning at the time of this writing, but Google had a cached version showing the following data:I can't ascertain the date, but the Google cached version says (emphasis added):This is Google's cache of http://www.luketrif.com/process_paragon.php?ct%5B%5D=ALAMEDA&mnbath=2&mxprice=900000. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Jan 19, 2009 17:57:38 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime.In summary, at various points in time, 8 Dolphin Court was...
- Listed as MLS(r) #40258170 and priced at $860,000
- Listed as MLS(r) #40356830 and priced at $729,900
- Dropped to $699,900
- Listed as MLS(r) #40396446 and priced at $599,000 (today's listing)
- how this listing has fared since it was first listed,
- whether the current owners (be they human or bank-shaped) might be easy or hard to deal with,
- whether trying to buy this property is worth the time (banks are notoriously slow and impenetrable, and some folks are giving up or not interested in wasting their time trying to buy REOs and foreclosures)
- the listing's prior price and sale history,
There'll be a party at the Opine compound once that antiquated, anti-free-market conglomerate finally disappears in a cloud of vampire dust.
Oh, and that property on Dolphin Court, yes, it's overpriced. Thanks for asking.
(bonus points if you can figure out the title of this post)
Update 9/28/09: Sold for $628,000. All hail Spring fever bidding wars in the worst economy, job market and real estate market in 80 years.
Two Marina Village condos, both on Redondo Court, came on the market a couple of days ago. They're both "yawl" models, and have identical specs:
As is appropriate for townhomes near the Marina, at least one of them (14 Redondo Ct) appears to be seriously underwater:
It's also interesting to note how prices changed between 1988 and 1999: a whopping $772, or 0.21%, nominal value increase per year. Not 21%. Not 2.1%. 0.21%. Point-two-one percent. In real dollars, assuming 4.5% yearly inflation, that's about a $215,000 shortfall over 11 years. But we all know that home values (or prices; the myth has been repeated so many times in NAR's giant game of telephone it's hard to keep track) double every 10 years.
When the market is down, real estate agents always tell you "you can't generalize--my market in Pikerville, Maryland is doing great and prices are holding up". When you provide example after example that shoot holes the size of the Titanic into NAR's propaganda, they'll tell you "the house-value-doubling-every-10-years thing is a general trend, your isolated local examples don't disprove it."
Realtors(tm): Having their cake and eating yours too since 1908.
Update 9/5/09: 14 Redondo old for $510,000 in June, $110,000 off from its previous price less than 2 years ago. Nice.
2 bedrooms, 3 1/2 bathrooms, 1,631 sqft MLS(r) #40395927 (14 Redondo Ct) or #40396026 (25 Redondo Ct)The strident agent for both is, as you might expect, Wendy Sanda, who should probably change her first name to Marina.
14 Redondo Ct:
[...] LARGE [...] TOWNHOME STYLE YAWL PLAN IS 2+ BEDROOMS/3.5 BATH. HUGE EXTRA ROOM WITH IT'S OWN BATHROOM IS ON THE GROUND LEVEL. [...] EXTRA LARGE GARAGE LENDS ITSELF TO A WORK ROOM OR LOTS OF STORAGE SPACE.
25 Redondo Ct:
FINALLY ONE OF THE COVETED "YAWL" CONDOS OVERLOOKING THE MARINA! [...] BONUS ROOM WITH IT'S OWN BATHROOM ON THE GROUND LEVEL AND A PATIO. [...] GAS COOKTOP, CORIAN COUNTERTOPS, GAS FIREPLACE, SOUND/INTERCOM SYSTEM THROUGHOUT. ..
As is appropriate for townhomes near the Marina, at least one of them (14 Redondo Ct) appears to be seriously underwater:
Property History for 14 REDONDO Ct
Date Event Price Feb 18, 2009 Listed $575,000 Oct 19, 2007 Sold $620,000 Sep 01, 1999 Sold $364,500
What I don't understand is why Ms. Sanda took two near-identical listings priced $75,000 apart, since the cheaper one is almost guaranteed to eclipse or at least cannibalize sales prospects for the other.Property History for 25 REDONDO Ct
Date Event Price Feb 19, 2009 Listed $650,000 Nov 18, 1991 Sold $371,000 Dec 23, 1988 Sold $356,000
It's also interesting to note how prices changed between 1988 and 1999: a whopping $772, or 0.21%, nominal value increase per year. Not 21%. Not 2.1%. 0.21%. Point-two-one percent. In real dollars, assuming 4.5% yearly inflation, that's about a $215,000 shortfall over 11 years. But we all know that home values (or prices; the myth has been repeated so many times in NAR's giant game of telephone it's hard to keep track) double every 10 years.
When the market is down, real estate agents always tell you "you can't generalize--my market in Pikerville, Maryland is doing great and prices are holding up". When you provide example after example that shoot holes the size of the Titanic into NAR's propaganda, they'll tell you "the house-value-doubling-every-10-years thing is a general trend, your isolated local examples don't disprove it."
Realtors(tm): Having their cake and eating yours too since 1908.
Update 9/5/09: 14 Redondo old for $510,000 in June, $110,000 off from its previous price less than 2 years ago. Nice.
Yet another West End Victorian on the market today. It will be familiar to those of us who've been watching Alameda Victorian sales for a couple of years, as we shall see directly. 461 Santa Clara, depending on who you ask (public records or the current listing) has the following specs:
That last transaction is recent enough to still appear on various sites.
Full remodel or not, $780,000 is much too high ($398 / sqft) given the property's location and the fact that its "ground floor" (the one at the bottom end of the hideous, très non-period spiral staircase) actually started out as a high basement. It also has some competition from an architecturally similar Vic near the lagoon that's been on the market for almost six months around $600,000 and still hasn't sold (I might post about this one at some point; I'm very curious about the garden gnome playing hide and seek against the wall in the bottom right-hand corner):
MLS(r): 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 1,962 sqft, 5,904-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40395507, $780,000Why is this a familiar sight? Turns out this property appears to be a flip:
Public records: 2 bedrooms, 1 1/2 bathroom, 1,074 sqft
Gorgeous 4 bedroom 2 bath Victorian [...] Completely remodeled first floor with permits. High ceilings, wood floors, spiral staircase, updated bath upstairs and new bath downstairs. [...] grand formal dining room. Nice landscaping.
It's not clear why Zillow doesn't include that last transaction in their Zestimate--maybe the price is anomalous on the high side, considering Zillow only knows about 1,074 sqft and 2 bedrooms?Last sale and tax info
- Sold 01/08/2008: $630,000 *
- 2008 Property Tax: $3,173
That last transaction is recent enough to still appear on various sites.
Full remodel or not, $780,000 is much too high ($398 / sqft) given the property's location and the fact that its "ground floor" (the one at the bottom end of the hideous, très non-period spiral staircase) actually started out as a high basement. It also has some competition from an architecturally similar Vic near the lagoon that's been on the market for almost six months around $600,000 and still hasn't sold (I might post about this one at some point; I'm very curious about the garden gnome playing hide and seek against the wall in the bottom right-hand corner):
Every once in a while a house is actually priced realistically. Not affordably, mind you--that's for 2010 and 2011. But today's listing at 1429 Gibbons doesn't monkey around.
Of course the cherry on top is the sale history showing not one but two prior sales at a higher price:
3 bedrooms, 3 1/2 bathrooms, 2,980 sqft, 6,231-sqft lot, MLS(r) #352702, $799,000This house is so pretty and the price is so uncharacteristically reasonable ($268/sqft) I will forgive the agent's horrifying capitalization. Just this once.
Beautiful Original Woodwork, Ballroom Size Living Room [...] Remodeled Kitchen, [...] Good Layout for Live-in Au-Pair, Abundant Attic and Basement Storage. Wrap-Around Garden and Play Areas.
Of course the cherry on top is the sale history showing not one but two prior sales at a higher price:
Sale History:Just two years ago this property would easily have been listed at $1.2M and probably sold. But times have changed (they're only just getting started). I'll be very surprised if it's not sold by week's end above list price (buyers still go ape over big East End properties) assuming there's no structural skeleton lurking in the closet, or in the attic.
10/29/2004: $965,000
07/12/2002: $810,000
I'll let the numbers speak for themselves today. 1713-1715 9th street just came on the market:
Prior sale? Of course.
I can think of a lot of better uses for $5,700 a month.
Update 2/22/09: the property photos on the MLS(r) suggest the building is completely empty. What a wonderful purchase at full price when you have to find tenants right off the bat.
5 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms (2 units), 2,346 sqft, MLS(r) #352847, $675,000 ($288 / sqft)Before you run out and buy it as an "investment", be sure to borrow your 6th grader's calculator.
Nice duplex-two houses on one lot. Large front home is a 3 bedroom, 1 bath. [...] Rear residence is a charming 1 bedroom, 1 bath cottage. [...] beautiful neighborhood of Alameda and close to public transportation, fwy access, and shopping.
Prior sale? Of course.
Assuming a full-price sale at $675,000, that comes out to about $5,700 up in smoke every month since the owners took possession.Last sale and tax info
- Sold 09/27/2006: $840,000
- 2008 Property Tax: $10,470
I can think of a lot of better uses for $5,700 a month.
Update 2/22/09: the property photos on the MLS(r) suggest the building is completely empty. What a wonderful purchase at full price when you have to find tenants right off the bat.
Just as I was looking forward to writing a post lauding a seller for their realistic pricing, reality hit under the guise of a a truthful MLS(r) description. Rats.
Today's "major fixer" is a huge Dutch colonial house near the lagoon at 855 Cedar, with the following appetizing specs:
I was excited about this listing, because at $935,000 for 3 units in a 4,810-sqft building ($194 / sqft), it almost actually makes sense financially as an income-generating property, unlike other properties covered on this blog: you could probably rent the two smaller units for a combined $2,700 a month or so, leaving you with a manageable payment for the big 4-bedroom owner's unit.
Little did I know this house was a...
Today's "major fixer" is a huge Dutch colonial house near the lagoon at 855 Cedar, with the following appetizing specs:
8 bedrooms (3 units: 4BA, 3BA, 1BA), 2 bathrooms, 4,810 sqft (!!!!), MLS(r) #40395456, $935,000
I was excited about this listing, because at $935,000 for 3 units in a 4,810-sqft building ($194 / sqft), it almost actually makes sense financially as an income-generating property, unlike other properties covered on this blog: you could probably rent the two smaller units for a combined $2,700 a month or so, leaving you with a manageable payment for the big 4-bedroom owner's unit. Little did I know this house was a...
MAJOR fixer from top to bottom but this Historic Victorian Triplex has huge potential! [...] Great for owner to live in 1 unit and rent out 2nd & 3rd unit. Prime Location, near Park St dining, transportation, Alameda Towne Center shopping, schools & Hospital. [...] property is on the Historic list. Needs everything it has been vacant for many yearsI wouldn't be surprised if you had to put in $75-$100 / sqft to make the place livable, which of course blows the reasonable price concept to smithereens.
On cold, rainy days like today, tiny blue-gray bungalows like the new listing at 3227 Madison look even more forlorn, even when their lots are so small you must be sharing in every moment of your neighbors' lives.
$559,000 for 975 sqft on less than 2,000 sqft of land comes out to an outrageous $573 / sqft, but the owners might not have a choice if they don't want to write a big check at closing (especially if they "extracted equity" to pay for the new roof and sewer lateral):
Redfin posts three flavors of the much maligned automated Web valuation tools on their listings (Zillow's, eppraisal's, and Cyberhomes'), and amusingly the odd man out is probably the closest to the real value of this tiny house: as of 2/15/09, eppraisal has this property valued between $198K and $268K, and that's about as much as anyone should pay.
There are plenty of comps and competition on the market at the moment, so I don't see how this house could sell without at least one price drop, given that it's both smaller and more expensive than everyone else.
2 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 975 sqft, 1,848-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40395442, $559,000I'd like to know where they found the space to put the bonus room.
[...] charming two bedroom, two bath home with a bonus room, [...] with built-ins, new roof in 2006, new sewer lateral in 2005
$559,000 for 975 sqft on less than 2,000 sqft of land comes out to an outrageous $573 / sqft, but the owners might not have a choice if they don't want to write a big check at closing (especially if they "extracted equity" to pay for the new roof and sewer lateral):
If this doesn't make the case that paying too much, even when low interest rates make the monthly payment "affordable", is always an idiotic, irresponsible idea, I don't know what ever will.Last sale and tax info
- Sold 12/14/2004: $500,000
- 2008 Property Tax: $6,667
Redfin posts three flavors of the much maligned automated Web valuation tools on their listings (Zillow's, eppraisal's, and Cyberhomes'), and amusingly the odd man out is probably the closest to the real value of this tiny house: as of 2/15/09, eppraisal has this property valued between $198K and $268K, and that's about as much as anyone should pay.
There are plenty of comps and competition on the market at the moment, so I don't see how this house could sell without at least one price drop, given that it's both smaller and more expensive than everyone else.
Reader veenstr points out an interesting trend: at least five expensive properties in the Fernside district have come on the market recently, all along the waterfront, and all presumably vying for the same buyers.
Rather than a full write-up on each of those properties, which would be singularly tedious, I thought I'd try the old compare-and-contrast approach in a handy little table.
It isn't particularly surprising to note that only one of these properties has an easy-to-find sale history (anecdotally, I've read that at least two of these homes have been in their owners' families for decades). What's also not surprising is that the lowest-priced property (the one with the most desperate-sounding description, natch) is the one with a recent sale history (and a big mortgage payment).
It'll be interesting to see this play out--expect some serious market cannibalization, mostly because the buyer pool for high-end Fernside Mediterraneans (which I suppose excludes the bizarro spaceship at 3343 Fernside) is simply not big enough to move 4 or 5 listings in a short amount of time.
Rather than a full write-up on each of those properties, which would be singularly tedious, I thought I'd try the old compare-and-contrast approach in a handy little table.| Address | 3231 Fernside | 3237 Fernside | 3343 Fernside | 2921 Marina | 3045 Marina |
| MLS® # | 40378008 | 40394995 | 40378623 | 40393213 | 40385068 |
| Price | $899,000 | $1,010,000 |
$1,150,000 | $1,064,000 |
$1,395,000 |
| Bedrooms | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 3 |
| Bathrooms | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 3 |
| Sqft | 1,472 | 2,552 | 3,402 | 2,064 | 1,600 |
| Lot sqft | 5,376 | 6,512 | 7,031 | 5,900 | 5,800 |
| Price / sqft | $611 | $429 | $338 | $523 | |
| Prev. sale date | 12/2/2003 | ||||
| Prev. sale amount | $690,000 | ||||
| Prev. sale date | 6/2/1995 | ||||
| Prev. sale amount | $265,500 | ||||
| DOM | 110 | 2 | 107 | 11 | 107 |
| Date listed | 10/27/2008 | 2/12/2009 | 10/27/2008 | 2/3/2009 | 12/11/2008 |
| Prev. price | $939,000 | ||||
| Desperation level | High | Low | Medium | Low | Increasing |
| Odds of full-price sale | Medium | Low | Low | Low | Not happening |
| Agent | Keiko McDonah | George Borikas | Roberta Rossi | Bobbi Vogel | Nancy Hacker |
| Description | SELLER MOTIVATED - WILL CONSIDER ANY OFFER!!! 3+ bedroom home with water view and access. 40' Deep Water Dock. In Alameda's desirable "Edison School District". House may be larger then county records states. Up-dated kitchen, baths, newer windows and roof | Quiet Sophistication - Formal yet casual living in this 4 bedroom, 3 bath with all the rooms necessary. 46 foot deep water dock, a boat house , Large multi-level deck and an entertainment room with kitchen facilities if the weather becomes inclement. Refinished hardwood floors. Ready to move in! | Waterfront with dock and large deck w/ hot tub. Views of San Leandro bay & Estuary. Vaulted ceilings, spiral stair case, built in fish tank, skylights, balcony decking, BBQ, 2 car garage and ample parking, plus security decorative gate. Both units have separate entrance & laundry | ENJOY LIVING ON THE WATER in this beautiful Fernside home. Built in 1940, this spacious home come with a true deep-water dock and brand new 6,000-pound lift that has never touched the water! Inside, the home features three bedrooms, two baths, hardwood floors, a two car garage. .more! OH 2/15, 2-430 | Waterfront with dock and large deck w/ hot tub. Views of San Leandro bay & Estuary. Vaulted ceilings, spiral stair case, built in fish tank, skylights, balcony decking, BBQ, 2 car garage and ample parking, plus security decorative gate. Both units have separate entrance & laundry |
It'll be interesting to see this play out--expect some serious market cannibalization, mostly because the buyer pool for high-end Fernside Mediterraneans (which I suppose excludes the bizarro spaceship at 3343 Fernside) is simply not big enough to move 4 or 5 listings in a short amount of time.
Update 3/4/09: The spaceship is still for sale after 4+ months and no price drops. Perhaps it's time to consider what the market can actually bear, hmm?
Update 3/5/09: More competition just appeared.
Update 3/11/09: Multiple price drops in a snail's race to the bottom of the marina. Who will be the next property to break $1M?
Update 3/21/09: 3237 Fernside dropped to $1,010,000. Can't bring yourself to drop below $1M, eh?
Update 9/5/09: 2921 Marina Drive sold for $800,000, a $279,000 haircut (26% off).
Update 9/29/09: Family room of glass 3045 Marina Drive sold for $950,000 on 9/4/09 (47% off the initial list price).
Update 3/5/09: More competition just appeared.
Update 3/11/09: Multiple price drops in a snail's race to the bottom of the marina. Who will be the next property to break $1M?
2921 Marina: $1,079,000 to $1,064,000 on 3/2/09Update 3/13/09: Yet another property, at 3031 Marina Drive, just came on the market.
3237 Fernside: $1,095,000 to $1,065,000 on 3/5/09
3237 Fernside: $1,065,000 to $1,035,000 on 3/7/09
Update 3/21/09: 3237 Fernside dropped to $1,010,000. Can't bring yourself to drop below $1M, eh?
Update 9/5/09: 2921 Marina Drive sold for $800,000, a $279,000 haircut (26% off).
Update 9/29/09: Family room of glass 3045 Marina Drive sold for $950,000 on 9/4/09 (47% off the initial list price).
Who wants a boring sub-1,700-sqft house on a small lot for three quarters of a million?
Anyone?
Me neither, actually.
8 Wellfleet Bay has been on the market for a little over a month as MLS(r) #40389188, after trying its luck as MLS(r) #40363678. The specs:
The absence of description in the Craigslist post as well as the MLS(r) listing makes me wonder if the agent has lost interest, patience, or hope. I don't blame him (actually, I do; nobody forced him to take this listing on), because $442 / sqft for a completely unremarkable house (plus an extra $132 / month in HOA dues) is justified by absolutely nothing in the current market. The property's previous incarnation (MLS(r) #40363678) was even more overpriced, at $785,000:
Zillow helpfully points out that neighbors have been selling for less, or offering much more square footage for about the same price. Given the sale history, there should be plenty of room to drop to a number starting with a 6 (or even a 5 if you really want to sell):
Anyone?
Me neither, actually.
8 Wellfleet Bay has been on the market for a little over a month as MLS(r) #40389188, after trying its luck as MLS(r) #40363678. The specs:
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 1,694 sqft, 4,000-sqft lot, $132/mo HOA, $749,500
The absence of description in the Craigslist post as well as the MLS(r) listing makes me wonder if the agent has lost interest, patience, or hope. I don't blame him (actually, I do; nobody forced him to take this listing on), because $442 / sqft for a completely unremarkable house (plus an extra $132 / month in HOA dues) is justified by absolutely nothing in the current market. The property's previous incarnation (MLS(r) #40363678) was even more overpriced, at $785,000:
Zillow helpfully points out that neighbors have been selling for less, or offering much more square footage for about the same price. Given the sale history, there should be plenty of room to drop to a number starting with a 6 (or even a 5 if you really want to sell):But given the seller's reluctance (as evidenced by the DOM and tiny price drop), I'm certainly not holding my breath.Last sale and tax info
- Sold 02/18/1994: $334,000
- 2008 Property Tax: $1,911
It's not often that a building from 1940 makes me smile, but I have to say I was very impressed with the spectacular meltdown of 537 Central, which just came on the market. The specs:
It doesn't look like much from the street view, and the agent herself says it needs work (which usually means it needs a lot of work), but I'm not actually certain that's the right property, so I'll probably post one of my own pictures soon (that is the right house). At any rate, $211 / sqft is getting pretty close to a sensible price, assuming the house is actually livable and liberating its "potential" doesn't require another $200,000.
The sale history from Redfin, Zillow and Trulia suggests this property was a cross between a hot potato and a holiday fruitcake during the real estate boom (the September 2008 sale looks a lot like a foreclosure sale):
The funny thing is that even at the current list price, the property is still not cashflow-positive, even with generous assumptions (21% down to get to a conforming 5.5% fixed-rate loan). Including property tax and 1% in maintenance per year (just in case), we're looking at $3,200 a month or so in fixed costs; and there's no way anyone should pay more than $800 a month for a 1+1 rental in that house in that location.
So in the absolute best-case scenario, with zero vacancy and a move-in condition property, this building barely breaks even. Add in taxes on the rental income and you get a property that's still overpriced, even after a 34% drop since the last sale. Add in the cost of whatever work needs to be done to rehab the house, and you're better off burning dollar bills to heat your apartment (it's COLD out there this week) than buying this place.
Every once in a while, readers of this blog ask me what price per square foot Alameda properties should be. I'm not a financial planner or advisor, so you have to do your homework, but as far as I'm concerned, if you can't break even renting a property at $211 / sqft, then a reasonable, sustainable price per sqft for someone looking to buy has to be... less than $211.
It's really not that complicated.
And it's true whether the market is going down, up, or sideways: you never know when you might need to move (layoff, illness, transfer, retirement, new baby, divorce, sick relative) and rent out your house for a while (you may not be able or willing to sell for whatever reason). Moving in difficult circumstances is hard enough without bleeding money on a house you're no longer living in because your rental income doesn't cover your mortgage.
And to the mathematically inept who claim that we're just never going to see $175 / sqft in Alameda: this property has potentially dropped 34% in 2 1/2 years, still doesn't pencil out as an investment, and only the lunatic fringe at NAR still claims the market will bottom out real soon, any day now, really, so we're probably in for another year or two of real price declines. It was $127 / sqft twenty years ago, presumably in better shape than it is now, and (surprise!) at a time when prices were also too high and headed for a crash:
Adjust $127 / sqft down for 1988 bubbliness, add a couple decades' worth of inflation, subtract 20 years' worth ofneglect deferred maintenance, throw in some price pressure from actual investors who won't buy unless there's an actual return on their investment, and $175 / sqft suddenly doesn't sound so kooky anymore.
Watch for more of those brilliant "Alameda investment opportunit[ies]" go back on the market as the economy continues its epic performance of the past few months. In fact, it might be entertaining to make it a game--look for some egregious transaction prices in the past 5 years of old issues of SFGate's Alameda home sales and predict when they'll come back on the market. Whoever guesses the next sale price gets a cupcake.
Postlude: After writing this post and reflecting on earlier writeups on other "investment properties", it struck me once again how absurd it is that a blogger with absolutely zero interest in any of these transactions would spend more time doing basic arithmetic than the irresponsible, innumerate, improvidentidiots investors who put themselves on the hook for $45K a year in mortgage payments on properties that bring in $2,500 a month in gross rental income. Sigh.
4 units (1+1 each), 2,487 sqft, MLS(r) #40395338, $525,000
Potential says it all! Needs work - take advantage of this Alameda investment opportunity. [...] Unit 1 & 2 have been converted to large unit - easily converted back. [...] Come see!
It doesn't look like much from the street view, and the agent herself says it needs work (which usually means it needs a lot of work)The sale history from Redfin, Zillow and Trulia suggests this property was a cross between a hot potato and a holiday fruitcake during the real estate boom (the September 2008 sale looks a lot like a foreclosure sale):
Property History for 537 CENTRAL Ave
Redfin doesn't compute the potential appreciation rate for currently for-sale listings for obvious reasons (we don't know what the final sale price will be); but assuming a full-price transaction, we're looking at a 34% drop in "value" in just 2 1/2 years.
Date Event Price Appreciation Source Feb 13, 2009 Listed $525,000 -- Sep 23, 2008 Sold $702,473 -5.8%/yr Public Records Jul 25, 2006 Sold $800,000 1.8%/yr Public Records Mar 01, 2005 Sold $780,000 5.4%/yr Public Records Jan 27, 1988 Sold $317,000 -- Public Records
The funny thing is that even at the current list price, the property is still not cashflow-positive, even with generous assumptions (21% down to get to a conforming 5.5% fixed-rate loan). Including property tax and 1% in maintenance per year (just in case), we're looking at $3,200 a month or so in fixed costs; and there's no way anyone should pay more than $800 a month for a 1+1 rental in that house in that location.
So in the absolute best-case scenario, with zero vacancy and a move-in condition property, this building barely breaks even. Add in taxes on the rental income and you get a property that's still overpriced, even after a 34% drop since the last sale. Add in the cost of whatever work needs to be done to rehab the house, and you're better off burning dollar bills to heat your apartment (it's COLD out there this week) than buying this place.
Every once in a while, readers of this blog ask me what price per square foot Alameda properties should be. I'm not a financial planner or advisor, so you have to do your homework, but as far as I'm concerned, if you can't break even renting a property at $211 / sqft, then a reasonable, sustainable price per sqft for someone looking to buy has to be... less than $211.
It's really not that complicated.
And it's true whether the market is going down, up, or sideways: you never know when you might need to move (layoff, illness, transfer, retirement, new baby, divorce, sick relative) and rent out your house for a while (you may not be able or willing to sell for whatever reason). Moving in difficult circumstances is hard enough without bleeding money on a house you're no longer living in because your rental income doesn't cover your mortgage.
And to the mathematically inept who claim that we're just never going to see $175 / sqft in Alameda: this property has potentially dropped 34% in 2 1/2 years, still doesn't pencil out as an investment, and only the lunatic fringe at NAR still claims the market will bottom out real soon, any day now, really, so we're probably in for another year or two of real price declines. It was $127 / sqft twenty years ago, presumably in better shape than it is now, and (surprise!) at a time when prices were also too high and headed for a crash:
(source)
Adjust $127 / sqft down for 1988 bubbliness, add a couple decades' worth of inflation, subtract 20 years' worth of
Watch for more of those brilliant "Alameda investment opportunit[ies]" go back on the market as the economy continues its epic performance of the past few months. In fact, it might be entertaining to make it a game--look for some egregious transaction prices in the past 5 years of old issues of SFGate's Alameda home sales and predict when they'll come back on the market. Whoever guesses the next sale price gets a cupcake.
Postlude: After writing this post and reflecting on earlier writeups on other "investment properties", it struck me once again how absurd it is that a blogger with absolutely zero interest in any of these transactions would spend more time doing basic arithmetic than the irresponsible, innumerate, improvident
When it comes to crafting a listing, some agents go to great lengths to maximize the informativeness of the 300 characters allowed by the MLS(r). Others go for the catchy phrase. Today's miniature bungalow is described as "AAA"--Adorable and Affordable in Alameda. How lovely.
One thing the agent doesn't seem to grasp, however, is that "affordable" is usually a relative notion and essentially meaningless out of context. In this particular case, the sub-$400,000 price point loses a lot of its affordability as soon as you realize it's priced at $490 / sqft, in a mediocre location, and sitting on a lot the size of some tool sheds in Marin county.
Just as 2008 seemed to portend a return to 2003 prices, 2002 vintage prices are looking mighty tempting this year:
1 bedroom, 1 bathroom, 775 sqft, 2,310-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40394794, $380,000The agent also maximized her picture allotment--three near-identical photos of the outside, two near-identical photos of the living room furniture, and one photo of a cloudy sky are all you get (at least on the Pacunion page I checked). Maybe the cloud photo is there to highlight the backyard's southern exposure.
Adorable and Affordable in Alameda - AAA! Cute historic cottage [...] close to shopping, commute, beach and more. Front porch, hardwood, tile and carpet flooring. [...] ready to move in. Backyard faces south for outdoor living.
One thing the agent doesn't seem to grasp, however, is that "affordable" is usually a relative notion and essentially meaningless out of context. In this particular case, the sub-$400,000 price point loses a lot of its affordability as soon as you realize it's priced at $490 / sqft, in a mediocre location, and sitting on a lot the size of some tool sheds in Marin county.
Just as 2008 seemed to portend a return to 2003 prices, 2002 vintage prices are looking mighty tempting this year:
The owners might want to consider taking the plunge and dropping their price all the way down to $300,000 as a symbolic gesture. It may help them sell their blue lunchbox a little faster.
Sale History 09/20/2002: $305,000 No other sale data is available
Today's Craigslist post claims "Owner must liquidate" their big ugly 2002 house, and not just liquidate--liquidate "far below market value!" Let's see how much they mean it. First, the specs:
If you don't venture much into the self-indulgent-over-appointed-McMansion-KrapBox Home-infested parts of town, here's where Washoe Ct is:
And what is a liquidation price (far below market value, too) for a "2500+ square foot" home (that's officially 2,455 sqft)? My first instinct would be pricing it under $300 per sqft, and because this is a FSBO and there's presumably only one agent's commission to pay, I'd throw in an extra 3% to attract buyers. Let's say $250 to start, or a total liquidation price of $615,000 or so. Famously over-optimistic Zillow estimates this house around $680,000 as of mid-February 2009, so that sounds about right as a starting point; and if you really must liquidate, allow yourself to be talked down to $600,000, and you'll be sold in a few days.
Right?
Turns out our owner priced their home at the low, low fire-sale liquidation price of $799,000.
Washoe had more brains than this.
4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, 2,455 sqft, 4,500-sqft lot, no MLS(r) number (FSBO)You'd think after 6 or 7 years of living there they'd know how to spell "pergola", but I digress.
Beautiful single family home on a very quiet cul-de-sac in cozy Marina neighborhood. Just steps to parks, waterfront activities, the Estuary, shopping, restaurants, transportation and more. This 2500+ square foot home has a very functional and open floor plan with 4 bedrooms and 3 full bathrooms. Slate tile flooring with coordinated carpeting in bedrooms, huge open white gourmet kitchen with stainless steel appliances and eat-in area; huge family room with fireplace, large living/dining combination room, laundry room, lower level bedroom has french door access to a very cool courtyard with custom hot-tub and redwood pergulla, lush landscaping, sprinkler systems, enormous master suite with double door entry, hi cathedral ceilings, oversized corner bathtub, two seperate oversized vanities, walk-in shower, huge walk-in closet, two generous additional "Jack and Jill" bedrooms with adjoining full bath; two car garage, two car drive way, fully wired for all home office and entertainment needs! Excellent move in condition-available immediately
If you don't venture much into the self-indulgent-over-appointed-
And what is a liquidation price (far below market value, too) for a "2500+ square foot" home (that's officially 2,455 sqft)? My first instinct would be pricing it under $300 per sqft, and because this is a FSBO and there's presumably only one agent's commission to pay, I'd throw in an extra 3% to attract buyers. Let's say $250 to start, or a total liquidation price of $615,000 or so. Famously over-optimistic Zillow estimates this house around $680,000 as of mid-February 2009, so that sounds about right as a starting point; and if you really must liquidate, allow yourself to be talked down to $600,000, and you'll be sold in a few days.Right?
Turns out our owner priced their home at the low, low fire-sale liquidation price of $799,000.
Washoe had more brains than this.
Speaking of remembering last year's listings, you might recall one of my more impassioned pleas for typographical restraint. It appears agent Andrea Gordon either went to the same writing school as the boor who wrote that monstrosity last year, as evidenced by today's copywriting disaster describing the cat-puke-colored McMansion at 514 Westline Drive:
And about that property? Oh, right--well, what do you expect for a 2006 McMansion. Of course it's listed at a loss. Do I even need to post the sale history? Ok, I suppose I probably should.
long, painful sale quick escrow and full-price, all-cash sale, let's say, by Friday of this week. Or maybe even Thursday, what with the idiotic tax cuts that just passed the senate and will simply fix all ills overnight.
Update 4/25/09: Price dropped to $1,299,000.
Update 10/2/09: Dropped to $959,000 after a handful of other drops. Newish agent, too (Mark Playsted replacing Andrea Gordon).
We're now more than half a million dollars off the previous sale price 3 1/2 years ago. Not bad.
Update 10/25/09: Now down to $918,000. We're now $570,000 off the initial sale price (38%).
Update 1/10/10: New agent, new price ($909,900). Mike Silva is urging everyone to "hurry." Which begs the question: or what? Are you going to raise the price? Take it off the market to spite us all? This ochre elephant has been on the market for a year, and I have a hard time believing this latest $8,100 drop is what a thousand buyers had been waiting for.
4 bedrooms, 4 1/2 bathrooms, 3,741 sqft, 5,280-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40394468, $1,399,000In 10 years as a "real estate professional" you'd think Andrea might have picked up how to spell "amenities." I say, STOP THE INSANITY! Learn how to compose and properly capitalize promotional copy, or stay home. Although I guess that choice is probably soon going to be made for the agent, considering how great the real estate market is doing these days. Maybe she could use her free time to enroll into a writing class at Alameda College. Anything. Please.
[...] superb finishes and ammenties throughout. Close to Beach, Transportation, Shops, Restaurants, the Best ofAlameda!Hand hewn hardwood floors, Formal Dining Room, terrific Living Room, excellent Family rumpus room off Chef's Kitchen, beatiful Baths, great Master!
And about that property? Oh, right--well, what do you expect for a 2006 McMansion. Of course it's listed at a loss. Do I even need to post the sale history? Ok, I suppose I probably should.
Given how successful big, huge, expensive, giant McMansions have been at selling around $1M lately, this one is a shoo-in for aLast sale and tax info
- Sold 04/06/2006: $1,488,000
- 2008 Property Tax: $17,712
Update 4/25/09: Price dropped to $1,299,000.
Update 10/2/09: Dropped to $959,000 after a handful of other drops. Newish agent, too (Mark Playsted replacing Andrea Gordon).
We're now more than half a million dollars off the previous sale price 3 1/2 years ago. Not bad.
Update 10/25/09: Now down to $918,000. We're now $570,000 off the initial sale price (38%).
Update 1/10/10: New agent, new price ($909,900). Mike Silva is urging everyone to "hurry." Which begs the question: or what? Are you going to raise the price? Take it off the market to spite us all? This ochre elephant has been on the market for a year, and I have a hard time believing this latest $8,100 drop is what a thousand buyers had been waiting for.
Update 3/4/2010: Down to $889,000.
Remember last year when it seemed as if all of "Bungalow Boulevard" (Sterling Ave) was for sale and/or being foreclosed on? It's not quite done yet! A new short sale at 3230 Sterling Ave just showed up. The specs:
HELOC gone bad mystery.
For posterity's sake, here's a list of the fallen:
3240 Sterling Ave, the harbinger
3259 Sterling Ave, the one that got away
3247 Sterling Ave, the bigger loss leader
Note if this sells at $525,000, the morons who bought 3259 Sterling for $570,000 last year will be very pleased to have a new comp to help with their investment; this one is 150 sqft larger and has one more bedroom.
Update 3/11/09: Forget about selling at $525,000. The price dropped to $459,000 earlier this month. Another nail in the coffin of 3259 Sterling's equity.
3 bedrooms, 1 bathroom, 1,221 sqft, 3,422-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40394300, $525,000I couldn't find a sale history on Zillow, so why this is a short sale (i.e. the owners owe more than $525,000 on it) is a
Charming [...] many architectural details [...] built-ins and gum wood trim.
For posterity's sake, here's a list of the fallen:
3240 Sterling Ave, the harbinger
3259 Sterling Ave, the one that got away
3247 Sterling Ave, the bigger loss leader
Note if this sells at $525,000, the morons who bought 3259 Sterling for $570,000 last year will be very pleased to have a new comp to help with their investment; this one is 150 sqft larger and has one more bedroom.
Update 3/11/09: Forget about selling at $525,000. The price dropped to $459,000 earlier this month. Another nail in the coffin of 3259 Sterling's equity.
The ugly post-war structure at 3257 Adams has been on the market for a while (2 months per MLS, but I think I remember it being on the market before December of last year), and today its Craigslist headline caught my eye: it comes right out and says "Could use Updating." Maybe that's why there aren't any pictures of the inside anywhere I looked.
The specs:
How much for an ugly 1,397-sqft bungalow that needs updates throughout? Did I hear $420,000?
Try again. The sellers are asking a mere $639,000, or $457 / sqft.
I don't understand why agents are wasting their time taking listings like this that are so obviously overpriced and unsellable; it's not as if December 2008 was a great month to put a house for sale. On top of that, I wasn't able to find a sale history for this property, which suggests the owners might own it free and clear and should have plenty of room to drop their price aggressively. It seems clear from the listing they didn't extract much if any equity to fix up or update their house, except maybe for the kitchen. But of course they could very well have borrowed a lot against it and need a high sale price to come out ahead. Who knows.
Sellers: keep the price as-is, except for the first digit; make it a "4" and sell your house in a week.
Update 3/20/09: Finally a price drop, to a still-too-high $599,000.
The specs:
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 1,397 sqft, 3,500-sqft lot, built in 1958, MLS(r) #40384483(Agent Bobbi: Please note the difference between "its" and "it's")
Three bedroom, two bath home built in 1958. This house feels much bigger because of it's layout. The kitchen has been updated, hardwood throughout, a yard just waiting for somebody handy :) In fact, the whole house could use some TLC! Great location, walk to Otis School, beaches, all shops and restaurants. Check it out...make an appointment :)
How much for an ugly 1,397-sqft bungalow that needs updates throughout? Did I hear $420,000?
Try again. The sellers are asking a mere $639,000, or $457 / sqft.
I don't understand why agents are wasting their time taking listings like this that are so obviously overpriced and unsellable; it's not as if December 2008 was a great month to put a house for sale. On top of that, I wasn't able to find a sale history for this property, which suggests the owners might own it free and clear and should have plenty of room to drop their price aggressively. It seems clear from the listing they didn't extract much if any equity to fix up or update their house, except maybe for the kitchen. But of course they could very well have borrowed a lot against it and need a high sale price to come out ahead. Who knows.
Sellers: keep the price as-is, except for the first digit; make it a "4" and sell your house in a week.
Update 3/20/09: Finally a price drop, to a still-too-high $599,000.
Today's bungalow at 562 Lincoln is quite something, judging by its description on craigslist. First, the specs:
$450,000 for 803 sqft is $560 / sqft, which is about $200 / sqft too high (i.e. the house should be priced around $290,000).
It seems the owners realize the house is way too small for normal human beings to live in, as evidenced by their hijacking of miscellaneous spaces: the dining room is really a bedroom, complete with a super-classy mirrored closet, which is really handy to store your giant napkin, place mat and tablecloth collection:
2 bedrooms, 1 bathroom, 803 sqft (!), 3,280-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40394216, $450,000
Built in 1924, this simple bungalow was adapted to its owners needs through the years. They enclosed the front porch. They turned the dining room into a bedroom that can be easily restored into a dining room by opening the door separating it from the kitchen.
The detached garage was converted into one large room with its own private bath thus providing private quarters for a member of the household. The total square footage does not reflect this expansion.
The hardwood floors were recently refinished. and new double pane windows were installed.
The fenced yard has several fruit trees and rose bushes. And the carport is covered.
$450,000 for 803 sqft is $560 / sqft, which is about $200 / sqft too high (i.e. the house should be priced around $290,000).
It seems the owners realize the house is way too small for normal human beings to live in, as evidenced by their hijacking of miscellaneous spaces: the dining room is really a bedroom, complete with a super-classy mirrored closet, which is really handy to store your giant napkin, place mat and tablecloth collection:
The front porch is enclosed in case you might want to read without disturbing your partner in the bedroom; and you can't actually park your car in the garage--that's actually a bedroom. Non-permitted, apparently, as "The
total square footage does not reflect this expansion." Permitted, just not filed (thanks to the agent for the correction).
In fairness, the newly refinished floors look really pretty in the pictures, but that's really all this tiny Tupperware container has to recommend it. The 500 block of Lincoln isn't exactly a prime location, location, location.
The owners have evidently owned this property for a long time and should have plenty of wiggle room on price, but I wouldn't hold my breath for a significant drop given their moronic starting price:
And, Ms. Dimacali, a carport is covered by definition; an uncovered carport is called a driveway.
Update 3/11/09: This property is now in the "vibrant West End."
I can think of a lot of words to describe the 500 block of Lincoln, and "vibrant" isn't on the list.
Update 9/28/09: Sold for $410,000.
In fairness, the newly refinished floors look really pretty in the pictures, but that's really all this tiny Tupperware container has to recommend it. The 500 block of Lincoln isn't exactly a prime location, location, location.
The owners have evidently owned this property for a long time and should have plenty of wiggle room on price, but I wouldn't hold my breath for a significant drop given their moronic starting price:
Zillow's Zestimate is $367,000 today, which is also too high, but much closer to what this property should be listed at. Anyone paying more than $300K for this bungalow deserves scorn and ridicule. Especially considering it's not hard to find properties (Craigslist post) at the same price point that are considerably larger.
Sale History 06/13/1980: $72,000 * No other sale data is available * Transaction not included in Zestimate
And, Ms. Dimacali, a carport is covered by definition; an uncovered carport is called a driveway.
Update 3/11/09: This property is now in the "vibrant West End."
$450000 Sunny Bungalow in Vibrant West End (alameda)
Reply to: hous-na9wq-1069991398@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]
Date: 2009-03-11, 7:21AM PDT
I can think of a lot of words to describe the 500 block of Lincoln, and "vibrant" isn't on the list.
Update 9/28/09: Sold for $410,000.
It is well established that American real estate agents often write in a florid foreign tongue related to English. Today's listing is in an interesting dialect in which one can only get at the true meaning of a description by reading between the lines. 308 Fair Haven Road, a boring-as-heck mid-1960s rancher near the shore, has the following specs:
The current description is very informative if you speak Apologetic Realtorese:
Approximately.
I'll give them a C for effort, but I understand they were in a bind: the house probably was completely unsellable in its original condition last year, so they had to do something; and why spend a bunch of money on a renovation you're not going to enjoy, when there's a good chance the new owner won't like it anyway and won't be willing to pay a premium for it. And so they probably spent $1,500 sprucing up their LBJ-era crackerbox, and frankly that was probably the right thing to do.
I wasn't able to find a sale history, so it wouldn't surprise me if this turned out to be an original owner. The Meretricious Loutish Scuzzbuckets (tm) try very hard to prevent buyers from making informed decisions by hiding as much relevant information from them as possible, but I sure as heck am not affiliated with those idiots, so here's a précis culled from Redfin:
4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 1,411 sqft, 5,000-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40392375, $535,000This property was on the market last year for quite a bit more money, as MLS(r) 40350941:
The current description is very informative if you speak Apologetic Realtorese:
Just steps away from alameda's sandy shoreline which boasts spectacular views of sf this 1965 original ranch with 4bed/2bath is freshly painted, new carpet, laminate flooring, baths have new vinyl, kitchen with new granite,sink, updated electrical with permits. Come see the transformationIt so happens I used to summer in Tanzania with a herd of wild warthogs as a girl, and I understand Apologetic Realtorese. In English, this means "Our sellers are cheapskates who didn't do a damn thing to their house, so we blew it the first time around and couldn't give it away. This time, they spent the absolute bare minimum on cheap materials (laminate, vinyl, paint) and very ordinary but now-standard granite in the kitchen, because that's what HGTV says you need to have in order to sell a house these days. Sorry it was such a dump last time; will you forgive us and come see the pretty new lipstick we put on our ugly old pig? We might even give you a freezer bag like Tere Lee just for coming to our open house. And because this house's prime location, location, location,it'll be easy to forget how terminally ugly and bland it is--just go check out the San Francisco views at the beach down the street."
Approximately.
I'll give them a C for effort, but I understand they were in a bind: the house probably was completely unsellable in its original condition last year, so they had to do something; and why spend a bunch of money on a renovation you're not going to enjoy, when there's a good chance the new owner won't like it anyway and won't be willing to pay a premium for it. And so they probably spent $1,500 sprucing up their LBJ-era crackerbox, and frankly that was probably the right thing to do.
I wasn't able to find a sale history, so it wouldn't surprise me if this turned out to be an original owner. The Meretricious Loutish Scuzzbuckets (tm) try very hard to prevent buyers from making informed decisions by hiding as much relevant information from them as possible, but I sure as heck am not affiliated with those idiots, so here's a précis culled from Redfin:
Property History for 308 Fair Haven Rd
I wasn't able to match prices to dates, but we do know this property was listed for $635,000 at some point last year. Good luck with the new vinyl, folks. I hear it's an instant hit with home buyers.
Date Event Price Jan 29, 2009 Listed $535,000 Sep 16, 2008 Off market * Jun 21, 2008 Listed * Jun 21, 2008 Off market * Jun 12, 2008 Price Changed * Feb 02, 2008 Listed *
1527 Willow is one of those two-houses-on-one-lot deals that fell through the cracks and was neglected when it came on the market in November 2008. A reader contacted me through Trulia with questions about this property, so I drove by and collected various tidbits to share. Here are the specs:
The listing above is from Craigslist. I wish the agent would drop the faux poetic tone ("sits amidst a landscaped front yard" isn't really English, even if you spell "amidst" properly).
This listing has already been dropped once, from $775,000, in mid-January. It does sit on a giant lot, but that block of Willow (indeed most of Willow down to the hospital) is very, very narrow and inconvenient. There's what looks like an enormous high school playground in back (map), and a Montessori school next door, so you can forget about peace and quiet. On top of those lovely amenities, the aforementioned reader reports $70,000 in termite damage (gasp!) and possibly a new roof job required in the near future. I don't know what material or shape the foundation is in, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was all brick; I found exactly zero permit applications for either unit (although I don't know that for a fact; I'm happy to correct this post if someone knows whether this house has a concrete foundation).
All in all, $750,000 is far too much. I wasn't able to find a sale history, so perhaps the seller can drop the price to a more reasonable level, say, $450,000 or so.
I might start a "Mullets" category for this kind of properties--Victorian in front, cottage in the back. Or maybe not.
Update 3/7/09: Back on the MLS(r) as #40398697, with a teensy bitsy price drop to $724,500.
Update 4/15/09: Dropped to $699,500. Why the $500?
4 bedrooms (2+2), 2 bathroom (1+1), 9,750-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40380010, $749,500One Victorian-era Home and One Cottage - All on One Very Spacious LotLocation: Central Alameda
A Victorian-era home sits admidst a landscaped front yard and offers two bedrooms and one bath, formal parlor and dining rooms, and a deck off the back of the house.
A Cottage sitting at the back of the spacious front yard has its own front garden and patio, and offers two bedrooms and one bath.
Expansion possibilities are numerous on this 9000+sf lot.
Bring your creativity!
The listing above is from Craigslist. I wish the agent would drop the faux poetic tone ("sits amidst a landscaped front yard" isn't really English, even if you spell "amidst" properly).
This listing has already been dropped once, from $775,000, in mid-January. It does sit on a giant lot, but that block of Willow (indeed most of Willow down to the hospital) is very, very narrow and inconvenient. There's what looks like an enormous high school playground in back (map), and a Montessori school next door, so you can forget about peace and quiet. On top of those lovely amenities, the aforementioned reader reports $70,000 in termite damage (gasp!) and possibly a new roof job required in the near future. I don't know what material or shape the foundation is in, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was all brick; I found exactly zero permit applications for either unit (although I don't know that for a fact; I'm happy to correct this post if someone knows whether this house has a concrete foundation).
All in all, $750,000 is far too much. I wasn't able to find a sale history, so perhaps the seller can drop the price to a more reasonable level, say, $450,000 or so.
I might start a "Mullets" category for this kind of properties--Victorian in front, cottage in the back. Or maybe not.
Update 3/7/09: Back on the MLS(r) as #40398697, with a teensy bitsy price drop to $724,500.
Update 4/15/09: Dropped to $699,500. Why the $500?
Some listings make me scratch my head. Today's foreclosure waaaay north on Chestnut has the following specs:
Which begs the question: how on earth do you foreclose on a property that, by all right, you should probably own free and clear by now? Might that possibly have to do with the "granite coutertops"?
Oh, and whoever is trying to sell this miniature house on a postage stamp lot in a questionable part of town for $450 / sqft is, what's the word again, oh, right, a MORON.
Update 3/2/09: Still on the market. More photos from the Craigslist post:
Update 3/11/09: Price dropped to $437,000 last week.
Update 4/25/09: Price dropped to $394,700. New MLS(r) #40406548 to pretend it's a new listing, and "special buyer incentives":
Update 9/28/09: Sold for $342,000.
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 1,022 sqft, 2,485-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40394074, $459,900There's no sale history on Zillow or Redfin other than what looks like a foreclosure transaction back in December, 2008:
[...] sold AS-IS. Hardwood floors. Granite coutertops.
The property tax amount and the absence of sale history suggest that the last transaction on this property must have occurred a long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.Last sale and tax info
- Sold 12/16/2008: $357,668 *
- 2008 Property Tax: $1,400
Which begs the question: how on earth do you foreclose on a property that, by all right, you should probably own free and clear by now? Might that possibly have to do with the "granite coutertops"?
Oh, and whoever is trying to sell this miniature house on a postage stamp lot in a questionable part of town for $450 / sqft is, what's the word again, oh, right, a MORON.
Update 3/2/09: Still on the market. More photos from the Craigslist post:
Update 3/11/09: Price dropped to $437,000 last week.
Update 4/25/09: Price dropped to $394,700. New MLS(r) #40406548 to pretend it's a new listing, and "special buyer incentives":
Charming bungalow with gorgeous hardwood flooring, granite counters & updated baths. Full of light and ready for you to move in. Special buyer incentives (contact listing agent) - make this your new home!!
Update 9/28/09: Sold for $342,000.
Earlier today I threatened to post more about recent condo listings, and here's one that has me wondering what is going to happen to a bunch of condos (not just in Alameda, everywhere, really) as the economy continues its unraveling and the real estate market reaches for ever deeper depths.
The unit at hand has the following specs:
The unit at hand has the following specs:
2 bedrooms, 1 bathroom, 864 sqft, MLS(r) #40392938, $284,900 ($336 / sqft)
Bank owned 2 bedroom 1 bath. Condo.
The kind of units I'm wondering about are the small, sub-1,000-sqft (or even sub-900-sqft), 1- or 2-bedroom condos that sold for grotesquely inflated prices between 2004 and 2008 and are (unsurprisingly) going back to the bank or being listed at a loss. I've written about several such examples on this blog.
Assuming a 10% down payment (although perhaps a widowed senior downsizing might have the 20% saved up), an average mortgage on this particular unit would cost you about $1,500 a month, plus probably $100-$250 in HOA dues, plus $200 in property tax (at least), plus insurance, etc. Let's round it up to $2,000 a month to live in that little cubby (a conservative estimate).
For perspective, my rent is considerably less than that, for a much larger unit in a lovely area within easy walking distance of the bay, with much more character and offering amenities of a much higher caliber than this property. And contrary to what real estate agents might tell you, the foreclosure glut is not actually causing rents to rise: the opposite is true. So the more time passes, the less buying a property like this for $275,000-$300,000 makes sense. As it stands, this property would have to sell for no more than $125,000-$150,000 to pencil out and compete with comparable rentals.
If you're an architecture buff or someone with special needs like a ceramic kiln or a giant carrot garden or what have you, I understand the pride-of-ownership, my-house-is-my-home thing has its own appeal beyond strictly financial considerations. But does that really apply to tiny cookie-cutter 1960s condos (which may even have been apartments in a former life) on a high-traffic thoroughfare?
And there's the rub: today's asking price of $284,900 is already 29% less than its previous sale price less than two years ago, and it's even less than the transaction before that (in real dollars):
A lot of sellers are already screaming blue murder when you make an offer at or 10% below their list price; what do you think they'd do if you offered 25% of their asking price? More importantly, (how) can the financial system handle losses of that magnitude?
Update 3/10/09: Down to $269,900.
Assuming a 10% down payment (although perhaps a widowed senior downsizing might have the 20% saved up), an average mortgage on this particular unit would cost you about $1,500 a month, plus probably $100-$250 in HOA dues, plus $200 in property tax (at least), plus insurance, etc. Let's round it up to $2,000 a month to live in that little cubby (a conservative estimate).
For perspective, my rent is considerably less than that, for a much larger unit in a lovely area within easy walking distance of the bay, with much more character and offering amenities of a much higher caliber than this property. And contrary to what real estate agents might tell you, the foreclosure glut is not actually causing rents to rise: the opposite is true. So the more time passes, the less buying a property like this for $275,000-$300,000 makes sense. As it stands, this property would have to sell for no more than $125,000-$150,000 to pencil out and compete with comparable rentals.
If you're an architecture buff or someone with special needs like a ceramic kiln or a giant carrot garden or what have you, I understand the pride-of-ownership, my-house-is-my-home thing has its own appeal beyond strictly financial considerations. But does that really apply to tiny cookie-cutter 1960s condos (which may even have been apartments in a former life) on a high-traffic thoroughfare?
And there's the rub: today's asking price of $284,900 is already 29% less than its previous sale price less than two years ago, and it's even less than the transaction before that (in real dollars):
Yet I submit it stilll needs a further 55% price cut before it makes sense for anybody to buy this property. That would amount to a 70-75% price cut from 2006-2007 prices, which in many cases means a 70-75% loss for the lender.Sales History
Sale History 10/31/2008: $227,435 * 05/22/2007: $399,000 05/09/2003: $265,000
A lot of sellers are already screaming blue murder when you make an offer at or 10% below their list price; what do you think they'd do if you offered 25% of their asking price? More importantly, (how) can the financial system handle losses of that magnitude?
Update 3/10/09: Down to $269,900.
As the new year slowly rolls in, and with the Superbowl is behind us, we're seeing a metric boatload of new listings cropping up left and right. Of course, a lot of those "new" listings are actually relists, but that's par for the course for our lovely used home salespeople ethical real estate professionals, and certainly not a specialty of Alameda Realtors(r)--everybody's been doing it for years.
Amidst the glut, we discern a large number of condominiums, some of which are relists while others are newly minted MLS(r) numbers, such as today's Shorepoint Court unit. The specs:
So you won't be surprised by the property's sale history:
Multiply this situation by several tens of thousands over the whole US and you realize how astonishing the amount of funny money creation and destruction that has happened over the past 5 years or so is.
Watch for more posts about newly-listed condos in the next few days.
Amidst the glut, we discern a large number of condominiums, some of which are relists while others are newly minted MLS(r) numbers, such as today's Shorepoint Court unit. The specs:
2 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 1,092 sqft, MLS(r) #40392878, $335,000Nothing particularly remarkable about this unit, and a few other condos in the area have been listed in recent memory, which is not surprising considering the size of the complexes there. A lot of them have been in various states of financial distress, which again is not surprising given how overpriced they were during the boom while remaining within reach of buyers willing to commit 50-70% of their income to a mortgage (as opposed to, say, 120% once their neg-am ARM recasts).
Very good condition.Recently painted interior. Quiet end unit on first floor. Wet bar. [...] One of the best well-kept complexes in alameda.
So you won't be surprised by the property's sale history:
Or by the fact Zip Realty identifies it as a short sale.Last sale and tax info
- Sold 10/01/2004: $405,000
- 2008 Property Tax: $5,428
Multiply this situation by several tens of thousands over the whole US and you realize how astonishing the amount of funny money creation and destruction that has happened over the past 5 years or so is.
Watch for more posts about newly-listed condos in the next few days.
Reader veenstr noticed 1833 San Antonio had been relisted at a new, lower price. It is now known as MLS(r) #40392956 and listed for $1,055,000, down from its previous price of $1,175,000.
I happen to agree with reader LesBesTes that it's grossly overpriced (by several hundred thousand dollars) and horribly redone inside. Let's see what happens with the new year.
Note: Good news, thanks to Matt from Redfin. I'll be adding links back to MLS-related sites (Redfin property pages, specifically), since they're obviously not imbeciles like the nincompoops over at EBRD.
I happen to agree with reader LesBesTes that it's grossly overpriced (by several hundred thousand dollars) and horribly redone inside. Let's see what happens with the new year.
Note: Good news, thanks to Matt from Redfin. I'll be adding links back to MLS-related sites (Redfin property pages, specifically), since they're obviously not imbeciles like the nincompoops over at EBRD.
Miscellaneous