Recently in Price drops Category
A long, long time ago, in a galaxy close by, a cute Victorian fourplex on Central tried to sell itself at the strongly cash-flow-negative price of $749,000. Three years later, it's back at a much more down-to-earth price of $599,000.
The price history is a lesson in what not to do when buying property.
The price history is a lesson in what not to do when buying property.
Dan Neumansky beat me to it. 1304 Morton, which sold (with great difficulty) not that long ago, got a high-tech studio makeover, and tried to sell itself even more recently, just massively slashed its price from $1,329,000 to $899,999.
So one assumes the new owner may be taking it with him, which should help with the price drop. Some research I did (no links to respect his privacy) suggests he's a big-shot music producer, and so he'll find something to do with it.
The new description doesn't mention the studio:
Rare Painted Lady Victorian, Sumptous Eastlake period Decor, like a page out of BETTER HOMES & GARDENS MAGAZINE! Was on the market at $1.3M+ now priced 4 quick sale! TURN-KEY condition!All systems upgraded. Tenant spent $$$ & converted full basemnt/gar 2 Art Deco game rm/wine cellar/home theater. Gourmet Remod kitchen w/ sub zero fridge & viking stove. Walk 2 shops, park & Franklin School.
So one assumes the new owner may be taking it with him, which should help with the price drop. Some research I did (no links to respect his privacy) suggests he's a big-shot music producer, and so he'll find something to do with it.
A pair of large matching homes were spamming Craigslist about three years ago: 2318 Pacific Avenue and 2324 Pacific Avenue. After multiple attempts, 2318 Pacific is back again as MLS(r) ID #40514855 at a new, more realistic price of $649,000. Its valiant (not) attempts at selling made Knifecatchers' "Best of 2008".
It's described as follows:
The new price is down an impressive $801,000 from its initial list price back in 2008.
Don't believe me?
Redfin doesn't show the price history, only the listing history with price changes and delist/relist events, but it's entertaining nonetheless.
It's described as follows:
Large 3,600 sqft duplex at the prime Park St District. Original details, high ceiling, skylights, hardwood floor. Great income. Surrounded by a mix of shops & restaurants in the Park St Business District / Downtown Alameda. Half a block to Park St, Marketplace, McGee's, King of Thai Noodle, Habanas, Ole's Waffle Shop, Free Library, Alameda Theatre, City Hall."Prime Park St District" may be true if you don't mind being both close enough to the main drag to be annoying (if you live there) and far enough away to be annoying (if you're running a business and need the foot traffic).
The new price is down an impressive $801,000 from its initial list price back in 2008.
Don't believe me?
Redfin doesn't show the price history, only the listing history with price changes and delist/relist events, but it's entertaining nonetheless.Property History for 2318 PACIFIC Ave
| Date | Event | Price | Appreciation | Source |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 21, 2011 | Listed (New) | $649,000 | -- | EBRD #40514855 |
|
|
| Mar 19, 2011 | Delisted | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #8 |
|
|
| Mar 18, 2011 | Listed (New) | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #8 |
|
|
| Nov 20, 2008 | Delisted | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #7 |
|
|
| Oct 13, 2008 | Listed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #7 |
|
|
| Jul 23, 2008 | Delisted | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #6 |
|
|
| Jul 19, 2008 | Price Changed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #6 |
|
|
| Jul 10, 2008 | Price Changed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #6 |
|
|
| Jul 09, 2008 | Price Changed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #6 |
|
|
| Jun 23, 2008 | Price Changed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #6 |
|
|
| Jun 16, 2008 | Price Changed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #6 |
|
|
| May 27, 2008 | Listed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #6 |
|
|
| May 27, 2008 | Delisted | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #5 |
|
|
| Apr 25, 2008 | Listed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #5 |
|
|
| Feb 12, 2008 | Delisted | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #4 |
|
|
| Jan 23, 2008 | Listed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #4 |
|
|
| Jan 09, 2008 | Delisted | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #3 |
|
|
| Nov 08, 2007 | Listed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #3 |
|
|
| Oct 30, 2007 | Delisted | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #2 |
|
|
| Oct 26, 2007 | Listed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #2 |
|
|
| Oct 17, 2007 | Delisted | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #1 |
|
|
| Sep 19, 2007 | Price Changed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #1 |
|
|
| Aug 08, 2007 | Price Changed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #1 |
|
|
| Jul 24, 2007 | Listed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #1 | ||
Remember that post of the week about 1715 Schiller over two years ago? The poor little blue thing filled to the brim with discarded vehicles and other bits?
It's back (MLS #40505847) over two years later, apparently in the same condition--the agent is using the same photo, the price is in the same ballpark, and it's advertised as a "contractor special". Especially touching is the use of the same photo twice, with different aspect ratios, perhaps to highlight how versatile this house is, all 856 sqft of it. Or perhaps because the interior is NSFW.
The MLS(r) description says this:
The thing about fixing a house up is that there are fixed costs to the fixing, regardless of how small the house is. Your kitchen may be half the size of the average kitchen, but you're likely to spend more than half as much for a given finish level, if only because your appliances don't care where they live and cost the same in a 8x8 kitchenette as they do in a 20x20 gourmet extravaganza. In general, the smaller the house, the less (resale) value you're getting for a given improvement dollar, all else equal. Based on the original listing description, I wouldn't be surprised if the total cost of rehabbing this place was north of $50,000, bringing the TCO to a minimum of $300,000, or $350 / sqft for a tiny house on a tiny lot. Does that still constitute "good value after fixing up" in this market? You tell me.
It's back (MLS #40505847) over two years later, apparently in the same condition--the agent is using the same photo, the price is in the same ballpark, and it's advertised as a "contractor special". Especially touching is the use of the same photo twice, with different aspect ratios, perhaps to highlight how versatile this house is, all 856 sqft of it. Or perhaps because the interior is NSFW.
The MLS(r) description says this:Fixer! Priced to Quick Sale in Central Alameda. GREAT Opportunity! Buy low as a fixer and still have good value after fixing up! Not a Short Sale but is a distress sale and owers must Sell Now! Don't wait!!
The thing about fixing a house up is that there are fixed costs to the fixing, regardless of how small the house is. Your kitchen may be half the size of the average kitchen, but you're likely to spend more than half as much for a given finish level, if only because your appliances don't care where they live and cost the same in a 8x8 kitchenette as they do in a 20x20 gourmet extravaganza. In general, the smaller the house, the less (resale) value you're getting for a given improvement dollar, all else equal. Based on the original listing description, I wouldn't be surprised if the total cost of rehabbing this place was north of $50,000, bringing the TCO to a minimum of $300,000, or $350 / sqft for a tiny house on a tiny lot. Does that still constitute "good value after fixing up" in this market? You tell me.
The Neumanskys already covered 1831 San Jose Avenue, but I figured I'd throw my bonnet into the ring because this listing is so completely out of touch with the market it deserves an award.
1831 San Jose is a very pretty Victorian (although I personally ogled its roof and siding a week or two ago, and let me tell you neither looks all that great, but then again I'm not a roofer, sider, or home inspector, so for all I know it's all brand new and I need new glasses). It sits semi-grandly in the famed Leonardville district, named after a prolific and talented builder of the late-ish 1800s, surrounded by other Victorians with varying degrees of grandness (the corner-lotted one east of today's property is particularly magnificent, and huge).
It's large-ish (2,072 sqft) on a decent sized lot (6,600 sqft) and sports 5 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms, which is nothing to sneeze at. The listing claims 3 levels, but it's not clear whether the "lower level" (frequently, and equivalently, referred to as "basement") meets all the city's criteria for regular living space (e.g. the city has stringent requirements on parking availability for any unit or subset of a larger home to be counted as living space, over and above what the building code requires in terms of ceiling height and such). 2,072 sqft isn't a small home, but by way of comparison its prenominate easterly neighbor at 1835 San Jose is over twice as large, with 8 bedrooms in 4,761 sqft of Victorian goodness standing unarguably grandly on a large corner lot.
The property does look very pretty in its Craigslist photos, and the yard is quite a sight (the agent calls it "magical"). The listing agent also describes the kitchen as "French-infused", which may have been achieved by steeping French chefs in hot water for some period of time and spraying the infusion throughout the room using elegant little perfume spritzers (the listing doesn't specify if that is indeed the process the owners used to French-infuse their kitchen). However that French infusion was arrived at, it seems to involve hanging your pots from a ceiling rack, commissioning your appliances from Solingen, and julienning your veggies on very shiny stone slabs. In other words, French infusion is indistinguishable from every other splurge kitchen financed by home equity withdrawals between 2003 and 2006 in the continental United States, at least to the untrained eye:
The price tag for this medium-sized hunk of gorgeosity is a mere $1,390,000. The current owners (over)paid a cool million back in 2004, and proceeded to sink beaucoup bucks into la maison to make it all grand and gorgeous and warm and custom-sound-systemed and French-infused. A good foundation job doesn't come cheap, and neither does finishing a basement-media-room-au-pair-wine-cellar deal, getting Harry Potter to bless your yard, or French infusion, so I wouldn't be surprised if the home improvements since 2004 total north of $150,000, which is again nothing to sneeze at.
The problem, however, is that $1M + whatever French infusion et al. cost bring the total amount to recoup when you want (need?) to sell way, way, way out of line with, well, pretty much anything on the island. One issue the owners may not have planned for is that the lower level improvements don't count towards your legal square footage if they're not, well, legal, as in tall enough and/or accompanied with whatever the city wants you to provide when you make yourself a big ol' house (I'm not implying the owners didn't do this by the book; there's an extensive permit history available over chez the 'skys and I'm not seeing anything untoward here; you may want to check for yourself at www.velocityhall.com; no direct link). But as far as I can tell from the language in the foundation permit, the basement job was never intended for living space (emphasis mine):
What that means is that your price per sqft isn't $1.39M / 3,100 = $448 (assuming the basement is the same size as the main floor, roughly), but instead a much less palatable $671, which I don't believe has been fetched by any property of any size at any point in the past four years (and almost certainly not the past two). For context, it is 12% higher than the next-highest listings (on a per-sqft basis) currently on the market, one of which has been sitting there unsold for 75 days. At any rate, however, even $448 is pushing the envelope given recent market trends. And there's no garage.
Another way of looking at this issue is by comparing this property to its aforementioned neighbor. Let's do some comparison shopping:
That's a really long way to say the odds this listing will fetch anywhere close to its asking price are below zero.
Update 8/1/2010: Price dropped to $1,200,000. It needs another $400,000 at the very least to be competitive.
1831 San Jose is a very pretty Victorian (although I personally ogled its roof and siding a week or two ago, and let me tell you neither looks all that great, but then again I'm not a roofer, sider, or home inspector, so for all I know it's all brand new and I need new glasses). It sits semi-grandly in the famed Leonardville district, named after a prolific and talented builder of the late-ish 1800s, surrounded by other Victorians with varying degrees of grandness (the corner-lotted one east of today's property is particularly magnificent, and huge).
It's large-ish (2,072 sqft) on a decent sized lot (6,600 sqft) and sports 5 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms, which is nothing to sneeze at. The listing claims 3 levels, but it's not clear whether the "lower level" (frequently, and equivalently, referred to as "basement") meets all the city's criteria for regular living space (e.g. the city has stringent requirements on parking availability for any unit or subset of a larger home to be counted as living space, over and above what the building code requires in terms of ceiling height and such). 2,072 sqft isn't a small home, but by way of comparison its prenominate easterly neighbor at 1835 San Jose is over twice as large, with 8 bedrooms in 4,761 sqft of Victorian goodness standing unarguably grandly on a large corner lot. The property does look very pretty in its Craigslist photos, and the yard is quite a sight (the agent calls it "magical"). The listing agent also describes the kitchen as "French-infused", which may have been achieved by steeping French chefs in hot water for some period of time and spraying the infusion throughout the room using elegant little perfume spritzers (the listing doesn't specify if that is indeed the process the owners used to French-infuse their kitchen). However that French infusion was arrived at, it seems to involve hanging your pots from a ceiling rack, commissioning your appliances from Solingen, and julienning your veggies on very shiny stone slabs. In other words, French infusion is indistinguishable from every other splurge kitchen financed by home equity withdrawals between 2003 and 2006 in the continental United States, at least to the untrained eye:
The price tag for this medium-sized hunk of gorgeosity is a mere $1,390,000. The current owners (over)paid a cool million back in 2004, and proceeded to sink beaucoup bucks into la maison to make it all grand and gorgeous and warm and custom-sound-systemed and French-infused. A good foundation job doesn't come cheap, and neither does finishing a basement-media-room-au-pair-wine-cellar deal, getting Harry Potter to bless your yard, or French infusion, so I wouldn't be surprised if the home improvements since 2004 total north of $150,000, which is again nothing to sneeze at.The problem, however, is that $1M + whatever French infusion et al. cost bring the total amount to recoup when you want (need?) to sell way, way, way out of line with, well, pretty much anything on the island. One issue the owners may not have planned for is that the lower level improvements don't count towards your legal square footage if they're not, well, legal, as in tall enough and/or accompanied with whatever the city wants you to provide when you make yourself a big ol' house (I'm not implying the owners didn't do this by the book; there's an extensive permit history available over chez the 'skys and I'm not seeing anything untoward here; you may want to check for yourself at www.velocityhall.com; no direct link). But as far as I can tell from the language in the foundation permit, the basement job was never intended for living space (emphasis mine):
(ALL WORK IN BASEMENT) R/R FOUNDATION, BRICK TO CONCRETE; EXCAVATE BASEMENT TO 8'2" CEILING HEIGHT FOR STORAGE ONLY (ONE LIGHT, ONE SWITCH AND ONE PLUG IN STORAGE AREAS); DIVIDE LAUNDRY AREA & INSTALL UNDERGROUND PLUMBING FOR FUTURE FULL BATH; BUILD NON-BEARING WALLS TO CREATE UTILITY ROOM & WINE STORAGE ROOM; ADD 2 STEPS TO EXISTING INTERIOR STAIRWAY; INSTALL NEW WATER HEATER, FURNACE & SUMP PUMP - NO EXTERIOR CHANGES (BLDG/ELEC/PLUM/MECH)
What that means is that your price per sqft isn't $1.39M / 3,100 = $448 (assuming the basement is the same size as the main floor, roughly), but instead a much less palatable $671, which I don't believe has been fetched by any property of any size at any point in the past four years (and almost certainly not the past two). For context, it is 12% higher than the next-highest listings (on a per-sqft basis) currently on the market, one of which has been sitting there unsold for 75 days. At any rate, however, even $448 is pushing the envelope given recent market trends. And there's no garage.
Another way of looking at this issue is by comparing this property to its aforementioned neighbor. Let's do some comparison shopping:
- To my right, a beautiful 4,761-sqft, 8-bedroom Victorian on a 8,800-sqft corner lot, sold for $1,390,000 near the peak of a bubbly real estate market
- To my left, a beautiful 2,072-sqft, 5-bedroom Victorian on a 6,600-sqft lot with neighbors on both side, listed at $1,390,000 near the trough of an epic, unprecedented nationwide real estate meltdown accompanied by substantial price cuts in essentially every neighborhood in every city in every state.
That's a really long way to say the odds this listing will fetch anywhere close to its asking price are below zero.
Update 8/1/2010: Price dropped to $1,200,000. It needs another $400,000 at the very least to be competitive.
Miraculously, 1201 Peach Street just dropped its price by $50,000 today. It now sits at $949,000, and is no longer FSBO--José Cerda-Zein is now representing the property.
It's also spamming Craigslist considerably less these days. It used to pop up almost every weekend, twice (until Craigslist viewers flagged it down), and return the following weekend, twice, like clockwork.
One particularly charming feature of this property, in addition to the wood paneling inside, is the daring blend of fish scale siding on top and tan stucco on the bottom.
More details at the original post from September 2008.
It's also spamming Craigslist considerably less these days. It used to pop up almost every weekend, twice (until Craigslist viewers flagged it down), and return the following weekend, twice, like clockwork.One particularly charming feature of this property, in addition to the wood paneling inside, is the daring blend of fish scale siding on top and tan stucco on the bottom.
More details at the original post from September 2008.Update 9/15/2010: Now pending, listed at $768,000. Wow.
Today’s “new” listing inspired me to dust off one of my old gripes about the real estate industry, namely its lack of transparency and borderline dishonesty.
3229 Fernside Boulevard came on the market this week, with the following specs:
4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, 2,172 sqft, 6,439-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40453128, $895,000
Traditional Mediterranean family home of highest caliber.[…] Living rm w/ fireplace, office rm w/ built-in book cases & French doors which lead outside. […] wonderful backyard […]
It’s in the same neighborhood as the half dozen or so properties that were listed all at the same time a year ago.
Given the size, lot size, waterfront location, and tax-credit-fueled buying frenzy, there's nothing outrageous about the $895,000 price tag (although $412 / sqft is silly in almost any circumstances).
What really galls me about this listing is that, on March 2, 2010, over 15 years after the Web started gaining acceptance, 6 years after we sent unmanned rovers to another planet, the real estate industry and its various players still can't, or won't, get their act together and tell people the truth about their listings.
I surveyed several sites' records of this property and I am appalled to report that none of them paints an accurate picture of this listing.
- Redfin promises to give you the skinny, but hides it behind a registration wall due to MLS(r) rules. And even after you log in, you get no information about previous prices.
Post login:
- Trulia shows the current price and its list date says "more than 180 days ago", but there's no mention of previous list prices.
- Yahoo! is completely out of date and doesn't even have an MLS(r) number.
- Kijiji suggests the listing is just one month old.
- Movoto, MLS East Bay and Sawbuck (never heard of them before) come out and say or imply the listing is brand new ("On site: 1 Days" could be interpreted as "new listing" or "new listing as far as we know", but I'd bet money most people pick the former).
- Cal Home Finder says the listing is pending at the old price and MLS(r) number.
What will it take for the real estate industry to get its act together and stop misleading people looking to spend six-plus figures on a house? I'm not holding out any hope for the industry to self-regulate, considering the myriad conflicts of interest: not telling the public a property has been on the market for a long time creates a false sense of urgency, which may help a sale, which helps the agent earn a commission, a percentage of which goes to NAR in the form of dues, so any transparency and data freshness rules are simply not going to be enforced. What's blocking the establishment of a single, open, publicly-accessible, up-to-date repository of property information about for-sale listings, so that consistent, accurate information is available to consumers on any site they choose to visit? It's not that technology isn't available to achieve this. If Google can update its index of billions of Web pages from the entire world multiple times every day, surely a database containing a few million listings and a few hundred million data points can be kept up to date and published on a daily basis.
It all boils down to archaic, arcane, and paranoid barriers erected around real estate listing information by an industry fighting tooth and nail against its inexorable obsolescence.
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 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.
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.
Hi everybody!
1304 Morton Street finally sold in early December for $938,000, according to Redfin.
In summary:
The extent and quality of the renovation work on top of the previous sale price (above $500,000) means the now former owners likely didn't make their money back on the transaction.
The moral of the story? Don't over-improve, and don't spend 6 figures on your kitchen.
That's a $312,000 price drop from the initial list price (about 25%) and 20 months on the market. I trust Redfin won't begrudge me a full history:
1304 Morton Street finally sold in early December for $938,000, according to Redfin.
In summary:
- April 2008: 1304 Morton St appears on the market, listed at $1,250,000
- July 2008: the price is dropped to $1,199,000
- September 2008: the price is dropped to $1,150,000
- March 2009, almost a year after the initial listing, the property is relisted for $975,000
- August 2009: the price is dropped to $949,999
- December 2009: the property closes for $938,000
The extent and quality of the renovation work on top of the previous sale price (above $500,000) means the now former owners likely didn't make their money back on the transaction.
The moral of the story? Don't over-improve, and don't spend 6 figures on your kitchen.
That's a $312,000 price drop from the initial list price (about 25%) and 20 months on the market. I trust Redfin won't begrudge me a full history:
Property History for 1304 MORTON St
| Date | Event | Price | Appreciation | Source |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 02, 2009 | Sold (MLS) | $938,000 | -- | Inactive MLSListings #80911577 |
|
| Nov 12, 2009 | Delisted | -- | -- | Inactive MLSListings #80911577 |
|
| Sep 22, 2009 | Delisted | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #4 |
|
| Aug 21, 2009 | Price Changed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #4 |
|
| Aug 21, 2009 | Price Changed | $949,999 | -- | Inactive MLSListings #80911577 |
|
| Mar 10, 2009 | Listed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #4 |
|
| Mar 06, 2009 | Listed | $975,000 | -- | Inactive MLSListings #80911577 |
|
| Jan 01, 2009 | Delisted | * | -- | Inactive San Francisco MLS #1 |
|
| Nov 21, 2008 | Delisted | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #3 |
|
| Nov 20, 2008 | Delisted | -- | -- | Inactive MLSListings #2 |
|
| Jul 22, 2008 | Listed | * | -- | Inactive San Francisco MLS #1 |
|
| Jul 21, 2008 | Price Changed | -- | -- | Inactive MLSListings #2 |
|
| Jul 19, 2008 | Price Changed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #3 |
|
| Jun 11, 2008 | Price Changed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #3 |
|
| Jun 11, 2008 | Price Changed | -- | -- | Inactive MLSListings #2 |
|
| May 02, 2008 | Listed | * | -- | Inactive EBRD #3 |
|
| Apr 25, 2008 | Listed | -- | -- | Inactive MLSListings #2 |
A short post about a property that's already sold, for a change. 3365 Washington Court has the following specs:
View Larger Map
As you can see from the map (although the marker is off by a block or two) this property is located in a very prime area, practically on the bay, with "spectacular" views. It's good-sized on a decent-sized lot. Yet it failed to fetch a million dollars by quite margin, and not for want of trying:
And...
The property finally sold for $925,000, an 18% discount off its initial list price.Could we be returning to the day when a million-dollar house was actually a million-dollar house?
4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, 2,628 sqft, 5,200-sqft lot
Spacious contemporary with spectacular yacht harbor views. Great floor plan with vaulted ceilings, dramatic staircase. Updated kitchen with tons of storage.Master suite with private bath. Huge bonus room with fireplace. Cul de sac location. Awesome garde
View Larger Map
As you can see from the map (although the marker is off by a block or two) this property is located in a very prime area, practically on the bay, with "spectacular" views. It's good-sized on a decent-sized lot. Yet it failed to fetch a million dollars by quite margin, and not for want of trying:
And...The property finally sold for $925,000, an 18% discount off its initial list price.Could we be returning to the day when a million-dollar house was actually a million-dollar house?
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.
A recent sale on Broadway is of great interest for market-watchers.
912 Broadway has the following specs and delicious first-person description:
Recent screen captures indicate this house was still on the market until recently, and remained for sale for close to two whole years (look at the list date):
912 Broadway has the following specs and delicious first-person description:
4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, ~1,760 sqft, 5,120-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40301101, listed at $875,000An alternative listing has a slightly less cute wording:
LOVE TO ENTERTAIN PEOPLE? I am a perfect house for you. I have a beautiful backyard with a gorgeous lagoon, hardwood floor throughout, and a livng room with fireplace to cozy up on those cold winter nights.
Buried in Redfin's data, you might also notice very reasonable annual HOA dues ($475, or ~$40 / month).
Gorgeous lagoon home. Open floor plan, updated kitchen with granite counter tops/marble floors/stainless steel appl. Beautiful garden for entertaining. Excellent location, walking distance to beach, shopping center and transportation.
Recent screen captures indicate this house was still on the market until recently, and remained for sale for close to two whole years (look at the list date):
The sale history on Zillow shows one recent transaction in 2002, for $609,000.According to multiple sources, this property finally sold for $600,000. That's $9,000 + probably $30,000 or so in commissions below the previous transaction price, and a whole 31% off the last list price.
The moral of the story? If an agent tries to talk you out of lowball offers, or says she doesn't want to insult the seller, fire her at once.
The trashed two-houses-on-one-lot dealio at 547 Pacific Avenue is back as MLS(r) #40435505 with the following description:
I wonder if you're you expected to live in the "stripped to rafters" unit while renting the unit that needs major repairs, or the other way around? Either way, it sounds like a great-quality-of-life, high-cash-flow situation, doesn't it?
The transaction history is amusing:
It looks as though the repossessing back is trying to turn a slight profit on the sale this time around.
Fixer---two houses on one lot. Second is stripped to rafters. First needs major repairs. Great for the investor or handyman. Live in one-rent the other.
I wonder if you're you expected to live in the "stripped to rafters" unit while renting the unit that needs major repairs, or the other way around? Either way, it sounds like a great-quality-of-life, high-cash-flow situation, doesn't it?The transaction history is amusing:
| Date | Event | Price |
|---|---|---|
| Oct 23, 2009 | Listed | $485,100 |
| Aug 19, 2009 | Sold | $412,000 |
| Jun 29, 2006 | Sold | $655,000 |
| Apr 03, 1987 | Sold | $175,000 |
It looks as though the repossessing back is trying to turn a slight profit on the sale this time around.
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.
Briefer posts than usual this week. 1224 Chestnut is back on the market after a long absence. The specs:
View Larger Map
This property was on the market back in early 2008, listed for an obscene $799,000.
(emphasis added).
3 units, 3 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, 2,334 sqft, 3,500-sqft lot. MLS(r) #40435063, $615,000 ($263 / sqft)
[...] Strides to St. Josephs, shopping and public transport.
View Larger Map
This property was on the market back in early 2008, listed for an obscene $799,000.
Open Homes for March 22-23
[...]
166 Oak Park Drive $630,000 Sunday 2-4 1350 Broadway $649,500 Sat. & Sun. 2-4 1616 A Fernside Blvd. $649,950 Sat. & Sun. 2-4 880 Portola Ave. $699,999 Sunday 2-4 423 McDonnel Road $745,000 Sunday 2-4 1224 Chestnut St. $799,000 Saturday 2-4 2718 Bayview Drive $759,000 Sat. & Sun. 2-4:30 15 Sea Bridge $905,000 Sat. & Sun. 2-4 26 Gonsalves Court $1,380,000 Sat. & Sun. 2-4
(emphasis added).
An old acquaintance just came back: 3257 Adams Street is back as MLS(r) #40434225 with a new price: $550,000, down from $639,000.
I don't mean to brag, dear sellers, but if you were willing to sell for $550,000 and had read my original post, you may have sold it in weeks instead of, you know, not selling after almost a year and being stuck with a still-too-high asking price coming into the slow season.
I don't mean to brag, dear sellers, but if you were willing to sell for $550,000 and had read my original post, you may have sold it in weeks instead of, you know, not selling after almost a year and being stuck with a still-too-high asking price coming into the slow season.
Property History for 3257 ADAMS St
| Date | Event | Price |
|---|---|---|
| Oct 15, 2009 | Listed | $550,000 |
| Sep 25, 2009 | Delisted | * |
| Jul 16, 2009 | Price Changed | * |
| Jul 16, 2009 | Relisted | * |
| Jul 06, 2009 | Delisted | * |
| Jun 25, 2009 | Listed | * |
| Jun 21, 2009 | Delisted | * |
| Mar 20, 2009 | Listed | * |
| Mar 09, 2009 | Delisted | * |
| Dec 09, 2008 | Listed | * |
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