Recently in Overpriced Category
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
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.
You'd think being a real estate auctioneer would require a modicum of real estate experience. Not so for Ion Stoica, whose Craigslist post today made me scratch my head:
$520000 / 2br - NICE COMMUNITY SURROUNDED BY VIRGINIA HOMES (alameda)
Date: 2010-12-08, 2:26PM PST
Reply to: see below
Year Built 1926 Sq Footage 1,076 Bedrooms 2 Bathrooms 1 full, 0 partial Floors Unspecified Parking 1 Car garage Lot Size 3,900 sqft HOA/Maint $0 per month
Beautiful 2 bed 1 bath with laundry in basement situated in a very nice and quiet community surrounded by lots Virginia homes. Detached garage with long driveway conveniently allow parking multiple cars. Convenient access to highway I-580.
Contact Information:
Ion Stoica
Real Estate Auctioneer
Continental Realty Inc.
16 Crow Canyon Ct. Suite # 100
San Ramon, CA 94583
Cell Ph: (510) XXX.XXXX
Intl: 001.510.XXX.XXXX
Fax: (925) XXX-XXXX
E-mail: selling247365@XXXXXX.XXX
License #: XXXXXXX
My best guess is that he means Victorian houses.
Ion Stoica is affiliated with a site named Oresy, which I'd never heard of before. They need copy-editing badly, but mostly I wonder what they were thinking with the whole boat-anchor imagery:
Continue reading West Virginia--1708 Willow Street, Alameda, CA.
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.
This blog hasn't been updated very regularly, but that doesn't mean I haven't been watching the market get all giddy with spring fever and the irresponsible tax credits that have been doled out by various entities that sometimes really can't afford it. Predictably, the giddiness and market distortions have caused prices and sales to rise in the first half of 2010 (view the original chart here):
One thing that's struck me over the past few weeks is how inflated the newer listings seem to be on a price per square foot basis. So I fired up the ol' spreadsheet to see if I was imagining things, and lo and behold, there's an amusing relationship between price per square foot and days on market:
The graph shows the average price per square foot for 94501 as of 7/23/2010 (thanks Redfin for the downloadable data), plotted against days on market. The blue bars (left in each pair) show the cumulative average (e.g. "<=30 days" includes listings on the market between 1 and 30 days). The red bars show the average for each band excluding previous bands (e.g. "<= 30 days" means 15 to 30 days, "<=15 days" means 8 to 14, etc).
It's not terribly surprising that older listings tend to have a lower price per sqft, if only because they're more likely to have had a price reduction; that said, one might also expect the reverse, i.e. the listings that stay on the market for a long time are disproportionately likely to have a high price per sqft. So this result is by no means self-evident.
By and large the data does indicate that the listings that have appeared on the market recently tend to have been priced using either the obscene gauge or the moron method.
Quite a few of these are, not surprisingly, bubble purchases coming home to roost: 3030 Thompson is an old acquaintance of ours; 3115 Fairview was bought for way too much in 2006 and is back for about $100K less, but still too much; 1100 Post one of those suicidally ugly post-war houses on that little stretch that curb appeal and interior design both forgot, is listed for more than its previous sale price, way too high but people inexplicably still fall for the old ugly-but-gorgeous-deep-down-inside trick; 2288 Chipman is one of them Bayport albatross that shouldn't have been built (or bought) in the first place.
Paying too much for housing and subprime lending: it's the new black.
One thing that's struck me over the past few weeks is how inflated the newer listings seem to be on a price per square foot basis. So I fired up the ol' spreadsheet to see if I was imagining things, and lo and behold, there's an amusing relationship between price per square foot and days on market:The graph shows the average price per square foot for 94501 as of 7/23/2010 (thanks Redfin for the downloadable data), plotted against days on market. The blue bars (left in each pair) show the cumulative average (e.g. "<=30 days" includes listings on the market between 1 and 30 days). The red bars show the average for each band excluding previous bands (e.g. "<= 30 days" means 15 to 30 days, "<=15 days" means 8 to 14, etc).
It's not terribly surprising that older listings tend to have a lower price per sqft, if only because they're more likely to have had a price reduction; that said, one might also expect the reverse, i.e. the listings that stay on the market for a long time are disproportionately likely to have a high price per sqft. So this result is by no means self-evident.
By and large the data does indicate that the listings that have appeared on the market recently tend to have been priced using either the obscene gauge or the moron method.
Quite a few of these are, not surprisingly, bubble purchases coming home to roost: 3030 Thompson is an old acquaintance of ours; 3115 Fairview was bought for way too much in 2006 and is back for about $100K less, but still too much; 1100 Post one of those suicidally ugly post-war houses on that little stretch that curb appeal and interior design both forgot, is listed for more than its previous sale price, way too high but people inexplicably still fall for the old ugly-but-gorgeous-deep-down-inside trick; 2288 Chipman is one of them Bayport albatross that shouldn't have been built (or bought) in the first place.
Paying too much for housing and subprime lending: it's the new black.
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.
The recent bump in home prices has some sellers seeing dollar bills again, as evidenced by a large number of new listings in January and February and some truly silly prices.
Today's inflated asking price belongs to 847 Santa Clara Avenue, a pretty Victorian triplex with the following specs:
I saw this property when it was on the market in late 2006, and can confirm it is very pretty on the outside, but the lot is minuscule, the inside was less than inspiring at the time (it may have been improved), and the property is wedged between its two neighbors, one of which is a church.
View Larger Map
I don't remember there being any deeded parking or garage, either, which is somewhat of a problem for a triplex.
The property last sold for $700,000 in late 2006, and given what's been going on in the real estate market, you wouldn't necessarily expect to see it again for... $850,000. Yet that's exactly what the sellers are asking as of February 28. I'd wish them luck, but that would be disingenuous.
Today's inflated asking price belongs to 847 Santa Clara Avenue, a pretty Victorian triplex with the following specs:
3 units (studio + 1-br + 2-br), 2,230 sqft, MLS(r) #40452574 (Redfin doesn't have the active listing yet)
Queen Anne cottage residence [...] great conditiion with lots of amenities everyone loves. Hardwood floors in lower units. Studio with large kitchen & spacious bath. Upper unit w foyer, high ceilings, quait balcony off bedrm, [...] Close to school, libra. shopping
I saw this property when it was on the market in late 2006, and can confirm it is very pretty on the outside, but the lot is minuscule, the inside was less than inspiring at the time (it may have been improved), and the property is wedged between its two neighbors, one of which is a church.View Larger Map
I don't remember there being any deeded parking or garage, either, which is somewhat of a problem for a triplex.
The property last sold for $700,000 in late 2006, and given what's been going on in the real estate market, you wouldn't necessarily expect to see it again for... $850,000. Yet that's exactly what the sellers are asking as of February 28. I'd wish them luck, but that would be disingenuous.
The ugly little corrugated shack at 1715 Lincoln Avenue has been on the market since June of this year, but I never wrote about it until now. It's such an unsellable crackerbox on a busy street I don't see how anybody would be interested in reading about it, much less buy it. But I've been silent long enough. Maybe the vacuous, cloying platitudes dished out throughout the holiday season have worn me down; or maybe yet another year of reading the same vapid garbage in real estate listings has finally tripped a switch. No matter--let it be written, let it be done.
1715 Lincoln Avenue has the following pathetic little specs:
View Larger Map
What if you did use this as a business and a residence: how exactly do you fit both a thriving business of any size and its owner's living space in a 1-bedroom Tupperware? Almost by definition, nothing "abounds" in a house the size of a gazebo, except maybe cockroaches, and certainly not "possibilities".
Seriously,dear readers, do you or anyone you know
entertain the hope, nay, the dream, of someday living in a slapdash
World-War-II-era nail salon?
And what exactly is affordable about a $432 / sqft price tag for what is arguably one of the least appealing properties to come on the market in years?
Stop the inanity! Just call a spade a spade and stop embellishing the unembellishable! And for the love of Pete, get a thesaurus and forever banish from your vocabulary those meaningless, vacuous cheerleading bromides that serve no purpose than to highlight your complete lack of creativity and/or make better copywriters angry.
Happy new year to all. May prices fall another 15% and option ARMs default by the thousands.
Update 1/5/10: Ms. Dimacali helpfully switched her post back to the old version, which has the following description:
The "Wear Your Pajamas to Work" title adds to the property's extra classy appeal as a potential nail salon across from a liquor store.
Update 1/18/10: After dropping to $349,999 (maybe a typo?), your next dream house came roaring back at $399,000.
Update 1/22/10: It's back at $349,999.
1715 Lincoln Avenue has the following pathetic little specs:
1 bedroom, 1 bathroom, 923 sqft. 2,280-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40415778, $399,000 ($432 / sqft)The MLS(r) listing is sedate and descriptive enough, and there's really nothing wrong with it. But what really got my goat today is the off-MLS(r) listing on Craigslist, reproduced below:
LIVE/WORK.COMMERCIAL ZONE. Good set-up for home based business. [...] Spacious living room.Large storage.laundry room. Small fenced in yard/patio. [...] Enclosed porch. Was used for business then, as residence today, or as either/both tomorrow.
Do you know anyone (not currently homeless or mentally deranged) who dreams of living in a tiny 923-sqft double-wide box planted on a tiny 2,280-sqft lot at one of the busier, uglier intersections in town (Lincoln and Grand), across from a liquor/convenience store, nestled between other ugly houses and busy businesses, and altered countless times to satisfy the needs of various non-residential activities in the 69 years since it was built (as an earlier, and evidently unsuccessful, incarnation of this listing once intimated)?$399000 Are you ready to make your dream come true? Live/Work at Grand Station (alameda) (map)
Date: 2009-12-29, 7:02AM PST
Reply to: [redacted to protect the guilty]
[photos]
ZONED COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. What a fabulous opportunity to have your business where you live. Possibilities abound in this 1 bedroom/1 bath house, enclosed porch with large picture windows.
Nail salon? Beauty parlor? Retail? Professional service? Office? YES!
Across from Alameda's Gaslight Emporium, on Lincoln and Grand. Convenient location at an affordable price.
View Larger Map
What if you did use this as a business and a residence: how exactly do you fit both a thriving business of any size and its owner's living space in a 1-bedroom Tupperware? Almost by definition, nothing "abounds" in a house the size of a gazebo, except maybe cockroaches, and certainly not "possibilities".
Seriously,
And what exactly is affordable about a $432 / sqft price tag for what is arguably one of the least appealing properties to come on the market in years?
Stop the inanity! Just call a spade a spade and stop embellishing the unembellishable! And for the love of Pete, get a thesaurus and forever banish from your vocabulary those meaningless, vacuous cheerleading bromides that serve no purpose than to highlight your complete lack of creativity and/or make better copywriters angry.
Happy new year to all. May prices fall another 15% and option ARMs default by the thousands.
Update 1/5/10: Ms. Dimacali helpfully switched her post back to the old version, which has the following description:
DescriptionLIVE/WORK. Rare opportunity to have a building in a commercial zone. Was used as realty office and an "antiquery". Use as a residence, a place of business, or both. Tremendous value in its zoning classification, among other businesses on the same block. Directly across from Alameda's Gaslight Emporium, at historic Grand Station. Cross street is Grand Avenue.
Was probably built as a bungalow, but when porch was enclosed, it was "modernized." Enclosed porch could be used as the office/reception area. Large display windows in front. Garage and driveway for 2 plus vehicle parking. Separate and spacious storage and laundry room. Fenced in patio for outdoor entertaining and cook-outs. Living/Dining room, eat-in kitchen, one bedroom and one bath.
The "Wear Your Pajamas to Work" title adds to the property's extra classy appeal as a potential nail salon across from a liquor store.
Update 1/18/10: After dropping to $349,999 (maybe a typo?), your next dream house came roaring back at $399,000.
Update 1/22/10: It's back at $349,999.
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)
I wonder who the first part of this "new" listing is directed to. 1419 Cottage Street, a cute overpriced cottage that failed to sell last year, is back on the market for a lower, still-too-high price. The specs, as a reminder:
The agent helpfully confirms this is the same property one may have seen last year (emphasis mine), which saved me a couple of minutes. Thanks!
was close to the then-asking price (screenshot taken today, 12/23/09):
The price has come crashing down to $619,000 and claims to be a great value, even though the renovations are still not finished. Note to agents and sellers: "less than I paid" does not equal "great value" to other people.
On a per-square-foot basis, $480 / sqft is a full $130 / sqft more than the going price these days, which in your case translates to about $170,000. In other words this property should be priced around $450,000. Sure, the agent claims there's a full floor's worth of square footage available, but 1) it's not verifiable unless you look at the permit status and 2) the work isn't finished yet. Expecting a $130 / sqft premium in advance for the promise of square footage when the next owner will have to fork over extra money to be able to live in that square footage is moronic.
So welcome back and happy holidays, little house. Happy new year, too.
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 1,289 sqft, 5,000-sqft lot, built in 1895, MLS(r) #40442977, $619,000 ($480 / sqft)
The agent helpfully confirms this is the same property one may have seen last year (emphasis mine), which saved me a couple of minutes. Thanks!
Yes, this one was on the market last year. New low price and additional work to the finished basement. Square footage will be approx double with some extra work. Quiet neighborhood. Great value.The Zestimate a year and a half ago... (screenshot taken in Spring 2008; note the owner-inflated estimate):
was close to the then-asking price (screenshot taken today, 12/23/09):The price has come crashing down to $619,000 and claims to be a great value, even though the renovations are still not finished. Note to agents and sellers: "less than I paid" does not equal "great value" to other people. Property History for 1419 COTTAGE St
| Date | Event | Price | Appreciation | Source |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 21, 2009 | Listed | $619,000 | -- | EBRD #40442977 |
|
| Aug 17, 2005 | Sold (Public Records) | $700,000 | 13.4%/yr | Public Records |
|
| Aug 09, 2002 | Sold (Public Records) | $479,000 | -- | Public Records |
On a per-square-foot basis, $480 / sqft is a full $130 / sqft more than the going price these days, which in your case translates to about $170,000. In other words this property should be priced around $450,000. Sure, the agent claims there's a full floor's worth of square footage available, but 1) it's not verifiable unless you look at the permit status and 2) the work isn't finished yet. Expecting a $130 / sqft premium in advance for the promise of square footage when the next owner will have to fork over extra money to be able to live in that square footage is moronic.
So welcome back and happy holidays, little house. Happy new year, too.
There's been a fair amount of activity lately, what with the renewal of the irresponsible tax credit and idiot agents cheering for the second coming. Here's a messy summary of interesting happenings in our little town.
A glance at Zip Realty will indicate the market is still littered with listings in various stages of foreclosures, and the market appears to be poised for a second wild ride starting early next year with tens of billions of dollars in bad loans coming home to roost (notice the inverse shape of the graph below and the Case-Shiller home price index):
Yes, I did use the word "idiot" an inordinate number of times in this post.
- 452 Santa Clara: here's a bank that's not messing around. 31 photos, nice property, 2,800+sqft Victorian fourplex, REO, listed super aggressively for $400,000. It'll be gone for way over asking in just a few days.
- 2267 Clinton is back, yet again, with a puny price drop (now down to $1,369,000). The idiot perma-sellers will never get their asking price and are wasting everybody's time. Remember this is the listing that claimed rents were rising just a year ago in spite of a mountain of evidence to the contrary.
- 3246 Liberty is a very pretty, large bungalow in a part of town that has people go ga-ga and overpay on a regular basis. This is one of the larger houses on that block, and it's priced comparably to what smaller bungalows were listed for this year ($599,000). Still too much, but some idiot buyer will probably pay that much.
- 1312 San Antonio is an expensive Tudor on a tiny lot in an excellent Gold Coast location. A short sale at $819,000 (previous transaction $869,000 in late 2005), it's unlikely to sell for over $800,000.
- A cute little Victorian 891 Oak Street just dropped its price from $575,000 to $475,000 in one fell swoop after remaining unsold for over a year. It's now a short sale.
- The unsellable duplex at 1626 Alameda Avenue dropped its price by a whole $1,000, to $942,000. Lovely price history:
03/24/09 -- $1,145,000 to $1,095,000
05/12/09 -- $1,095,000 to $1,049,000
06/23/09 -- $1,049,000 to $999,000
07/23/09 -- $999,000 to $950,000
08/25/09 -- $950,000 to $945,000
09/21/09 -- $945,000 to $943,000
10/25/09 -- $943,000 to $942,000
- 1304 Morton is finally pending! What price did the stubborn kitchen-pimping sellers accept? We shall see.
A glance at Zip Realty will indicate the market is still littered with listings in various stages of foreclosures, and the market appears to be poised for a second wild ride starting early next year with tens of billions of dollars in bad loans coming home to roost (notice the inverse shape of the graph below and the Case-Shiller home price index):
(source: Doctor Housing Bubble)
Yes, I did use the word "idiot" an inordinate number of times in this post.
Somehow, in the tsunami of Bayport houses coming back on the market in great distress just two or three years after they were first built, I missed 268 Bryant. I won't bore anybody with a long discussion and stick to the facts.
It was first sold in 2005 for $1,071,000, and given the competition just around the corner, I don't see how it can possibly sell for near asking.
5 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms, 3,743 sqft, 5,381-sqft lot, MLS(r) 40425512, $975,000This property was listed about 3 months ago for $998,000 and recently dropped a hair to $975,000.
Entering through the elegantly arched front doorway and beautiful entry with soaring ceilings and welcoming living room you know you are home! Sophisticated, tranquil and spacious, [...] exquisite residence [...]
It was first sold in 2005 for $1,071,000, and given the competition just around the corner, I don't see how it can possibly sell for near asking.
The little bungalow on a little lot at 1312 Mound Street is back as MLS(r) #40437110 for $499,000, $39,000 more than the price at which it failed to sell a year ago. The agent is either not very creative or not very motivated to go beyond real estate 101 platitudes in the new description, other than the Morse code punctuation:
Please refer to the original post for details.
Location Location Location. .. .. 3 bedroom 1 bath with hardwood floors and backyard with low maintenance. ..
Please refer to the original post for details.
A little Victorian cottage at 1209 Eagle Ave just came on the market with the following specs:
View Larger Map
It looks empty with nice period details and hideous modern kitchen updates apparently made on the cheap (or with no taste). The property is listed for just a hair more than its last sale price in 2003. It'll probably sell quickly in spite of its sub-prime location.
2 bedrooms, 1 bathroom, 1,161 sqft, 4,125-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40434764, $499,000 ($430 / sqft)
Queen Anne high basement cottage by Marcuse and Remmel built in 1891. Traditional charm w/ loads of permitted upgrades, and a kitchen for today! Period full bath. Plus room for office? [...] Tankless water heater, newer furnace. Nice yard!
View Larger Map
It looks empty with nice period details and hideous modern kitchen updates apparently made on the cheap (or with no taste). The property is listed for just a hair more than its last sale price in 2003. It'll probably sell quickly in spite of its sub-prime location.
Property History for 1209 EAGLE Ave
| Date | Event | Price |
|---|---|---|
| Oct 20, 2009 | Listed | $499,000 |
| Dec 30, 2003 | Sold | $465,000 |
3260 Briggs Avenue recently came on the market with the following specs:
View Larger Map
The extra-large lot is obviously the justification for the excessive, almost $600-per-sqft asking price. The last recorded sale was over 30 years ago, so one would hope this house is paid off and the sellers can drop their price closer to where it belongs.
Update 10/25/09: The MLS(r) photos suggest this place needs not just "work" but a complete redo inside.
Update 12/6/09: Dropped to $649,000 in mid November.
Update 3/2/10: Sold for $595,000 on 12/28, an 18% drop from the original asking price.
3 bedrooms, 1 bathroom, 1,221 sqft, 10,150-sqft lot(!), MLS(r) #40434872, $725,000 ($594 / sqft)
Incredible opportunity property. Three bedroom, 1 bath crafstman [...] Needs work, but great location and huge yard. Contact the city to get details on subdividing the lot to build another residential building on it.
View Larger Map
The extra-large lot is obviously the justification for the excessive, almost $600-per-sqft asking price. The last recorded sale was over 30 years ago, so one would hope this house is paid off and the sellers can drop their price closer to where it belongs.
Last sale and tax info
- Sold 12/01/1976: $57,000
- 2009 Property Tax: $2,072
Update 10/25/09: The MLS(r) photos suggest this place needs not just "work" but a complete redo inside.
Update 12/6/09: Dropped to $649,000 in mid November.
Update 3/2/10: Sold for $595,000 on 12/28, an 18% drop from the original asking price.
You'd think agents selling houses in Alameda would know the difference between the many architectural styles that grace our little town. Heck, in any town I'd expect a Real Estate Professional (tm), someone who makes a living helping people buy and sell houses, to have a modicum of sensitivity to building styles, or at least some knowledge of chronology. But that's not the way Marcus and Millichap rolls, evidently.
Today's property at 1012 Walnut Street has the following specs:
The one part of the listing I can't argue with, though, is the "perfect for owner-occupant" bit. That's because the only owner for whom this property makes sense is the owner who lives on the premises and doesn't mind paying twice the market rate for the privilege of enjoying one fourth of their house and sharing the yard with a handful of strangers; because this house sure doesn't make any sense as an investment property. Take a look at these numbers, provided by the owner:
"But what if you're living in the property?" you ask. Let's see.
Assuming the 2-bedroom unit is the "owner's unit", the numbers come out to ~$42,000 gross / $20,000 net income (remember you lost $1,200 a month by kicking one tenant out). This means you're paying $2,400 / month ($49,000 mortgage - $20,000 net income, divided by 12) to live in a 2-bedroom unit in a shared house (with shared yard) that normally rents for $1,200 / month.
What an incredible deal!
"But rents aren't always going to be this low!" you retort.
Maybe not, but they're not exactly going up either.
"But real estate doubles in value every 10 years!" you persist.
I suppose it all depends which 10 years you're looking at:
Today's property at 1012 Walnut Street has the following specs:
5 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms (4 units), 5,001 sqft, 3,132-sqft lot, built in 1896, MLS(r) #40434353, $849,000First off, as far as I can tell, the agent screwed up the details in the MLS(r) listing; the lot is ~5,000 sqft and the house is 3,132 sqft, not the other way around, at least according to Zillow and Trulia. This ain't Bayport, thank you very much. Second, if we are to believe the agent, this property is a rare example of a 1896 Craftsman, complete with bay windows and a second story like so many Craftsman houses of the era.
Detailed & well-maintained Craftsman with significant renovation-new roof, siding, paint, electrical, plumbing. [...] Large renovated Owner's Unit w/ 2 car garage & storage. All units sep metered/sep hot water heaters. Coin-op W/ D owned by landlord. [...] Perfect for Owner-occupant. Large backyard. [...]
The one part of the listing I can't argue with, though, is the "perfect for owner-occupant" bit. That's because the only owner for whom this property makes sense is the owner who lives on the premises and doesn't mind paying twice the market rate for the privilege of enjoying one fourth of their house and sharing the yard with a handful of strangers; because this house sure doesn't make any sense as an investment property. Take a look at these numbers, provided by the owner:
Unit 1: 1+1, $1,495 / moA 6% fixed mortgage on a $849,000 property with 20% down comes out to about $49,000 / year. So you're $15,000 in the red every year from the get-go.
Unit 2: 1+1, $1,050 / mo
Unit 3: 1+1, $1,000 / mo
Unit 4: 2+1, $1,200 / mo
Gross rent income: ~$56,000
Expenses (repairs, taxes, vacancy, etc): ~$22,000
Net income: ~$34,000
"But what if you're living in the property?" you ask. Let's see.
Assuming the 2-bedroom unit is the "owner's unit", the numbers come out to ~$42,000 gross / $20,000 net income (remember you lost $1,200 a month by kicking one tenant out). This means you're paying $2,400 / month ($49,000 mortgage - $20,000 net income, divided by 12) to live in a 2-bedroom unit in a shared house (with shared yard) that normally rents for $1,200 / month.
What an incredible deal!
"But rents aren't always going to be this low!" you retort.
Maybe not, but they're not exactly going up either.
"But real estate doubles in value every 10 years!" you persist.
I suppose it all depends which 10 years you're looking at:
If this property is supposed to double in value by 2015, it might want to get started soon.ZESTIMATE®: $873,50
- Value Range: $515,365 - $952,115
- 30-day change: -$2,000
Last sale and tax info
- Sold 06/17/2005: $856,000
- 2009 Property Tax: $11,866
After a lull in new listings, the end of this week reverses the trend with a number of interesting new listings. First up is 1206 Buena Vista, a tiny house with a cheerful paint job and the following specs:
Of course this listing is only new if your memory is short. After paying $630,000 ($711 / sqft) in 2005, the "owners" tried to unload their "stunning" house almost 2 years ago for $679,000. Judging by the San Francisco MLS(r) number and the funny-looking, non-round asking price, it seems that didn't work out very well.
2 bedrooms, 1 bathroom, 886 sqft, MLS(r) #362505, $459,900
Stunning 1910 home, well maintain and beautiful landscaped. [...] update kitchen. Located close to shopping, schools, and easy freeway acess. This one will not last long. .. Hurry!
Of course this listing is only new if your memory is short. After paying $630,000 ($711 / sqft) in 2005, the "owners" tried to unload their "stunning" house almost 2 years ago for $679,000. Judging by the San Francisco MLS(r) number and the funny-looking, non-round asking price, it seems that didn't work out very well.
Miscellaneous