Recently in Price increases Category
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?
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.
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.
This is getting ridiculous.
A Victorian semi-wreck in a hideous location (if you're a single-family home), cozily nestled betwixt a laundromat and a tailor, standing directly across busy lower Park street from a party store and a stone's throw away from my favorite tire shop (perfect for those mid-afternoon nitrogen cravings), came back on the market for the third time in 18 months, and once again it is listed for more money that the last time around.
More money. Not less. And from walking past this property at least once a week, I can tell you its exterior looks haven't exactly improved with the passage of time. Here's what it looked like to Google's Street View van a little while ago:
Here's a handy summary; please refer to the previous post for details on the property.
It didn't sell then, for obvious reasons, and now it's back, with timing so perfect it seems to have been carefully chosen to completely miss the peak of the selling season. And it's listed for $1,400 more than last year.
The sale and listing history are amusing; I suspect the June, 2008 transaction is the bank taking it back:
A Victorian semi-wreck in a hideous location (if you're a single-family home), cozily nestled betwixt a laundromat and a tailor, standing directly across busy lower Park street from a party store and a stone's throw away from my favorite tire shop (perfect for those mid-afternoon nitrogen cravings), came back on the market for the third time in 18 months, and once again it is listed for more money that the last time around.
More money. Not less. And from walking past this property at least once a week, I can tell you its exterior looks haven't exactly improved with the passage of time. Here's what it looked like to Google's Street View van a little while ago:
Here's a handy summary; please refer to the previous post for details on the property.
- In May, 2008, 1192 Park Street hit the MLS(r) as #40340126, listed at a grotesque $925,000. It had been on Zillow prior to that for $898,000 or so, if memory serves, and failed to sell, so the seller raised the price in a bid to attract more potential buyers.
- Then, in October, 2008, the property came back, presumably bank-owned by then, listed at $708,500.
It didn't sell then, for obvious reasons, and now it's back, with timing so perfect it seems to have been carefully chosen to completely miss the peak of the selling season. And it's listed for $1,400 more than last year.
The sale and listing history are amusing; I suspect the June, 2008 transaction is the bank taking it back:
Property History for 1192 PARK St
Date |
Event |
Price |
|---|---|---|
Aug 26, 2009 |
Listed |
$709,900 |
Aug 16, 2009 |
Delisted |
* |
Jun 11, 2009 |
Price Changed |
* |
May 12, 2009 |
Listed |
* |
Apr 18, 2009 |
Delisted |
* |
Apr 17, 2009 |
Price Changed |
* |
Oct 18, 2008 |
Listed |
* |
Oct 01, 2008 |
Delisted |
* |
Jun 03, 2008 |
Sold |
$644,100 |
May 02, 2008 |
Listed |
* |
Dec 07, 2005 |
Sold |
$163,000 |
Apr 18, 2003 |
Sold |
$112,000 |
Jun 29, 1990 |
Sold |
$56,000 |
Some folks are crazy about big old Victorian wrecks. But even the most battle-hardened Victorian restorer knows better than to spend $709,900 on an ugly, run-down house whose environs have been rezoned to accommodate laundromats and tailors and tiremongers, with a concrete front-yard and no fence. This property is essentially unsellable as a primary residence, which is very sad, but c'est la vie.
The bank may as well do a good deed and just donate the building to someone who could use it to run a not-for-profit law practice, child care center, or custom t-shirt design shop. Anything but a house.
The bank may as well do a good deed and just donate the building to someone who could use it to run a not-for-profit law practice, child care center, or custom t-shirt design shop. Anything but a house.
You may remember the heinous failure of the auction scheduled a few Fridays ago for 1238 Versailles. Looks like they're trying a real listing again, listed at $1,395,000.
"Live where you work"? How many people who can afford a $1.4M house work in Alameda?
"Only the second owners"? Let's do a little math. "After 25 years" means the house was purchased in 1984. Since it was built in 1854, the previous, original owner was at least 150 years old when they sold (assuming they were at least 20 years old when they bought the house new). That's another seriously old seller. The weather on the island must be very good for one's health and longevity.
Oh, and it didn't sell at $1,395,000, and nobody bid on it at the auction even though it started at $595,000. So what exactly makes you think it'll go this time around?
$1395000 / 6br - BED & BREAKFAST INN RESTAURANT & TEAHOUSE (alameda) (map)
Reply to:
Date: 2009-05-05, 12:06PM PDT
Beautiful historic property renovated with building permits. Rated as a 14 year old house by the insurance company! Bed and Breakfast Inn, Restaurant and Teahouse established over 25 years. Live where you work in a gorgeous Island setting. Ferries are accessible to take you all over the Bay Area, as well as access to Bart (Bay Area Rapid Transit) Six bedrooms, six baths, six fireplaces and a full commercial kitchen approved by the Alameda County Health Department. We have an exemption from parking and the property is zoned commercial, so this is a legal conforming use - no Use Permits required.
The "Oldest House in Alameda" 22nd City Historical Monument, since 1854, shipped around the Cape Horn designed by Andrew Jackson Downing. Large coastal redwood trees and California live oak create a very unique setting in this east end property. We have been hosting High Tea and Dinners daily as well as weddings and receptions. Owners retiring after 25 years. We are only the second owners. Chance of a lifetime! Call 510-523-9697 for a private showing.
Versailles Ave at Encinal Ave (google map) (yahoo map)
- it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
"Live where you work"? How many people who can afford a $1.4M house work in Alameda?
"Only the second owners"? Let's do a little math. "After 25 years" means the house was purchased in 1984. Since it was built in 1854, the previous, original owner was at least 150 years old when they sold (assuming they were at least 20 years old when they bought the house new). That's another seriously old seller. The weather on the island must be very good for one's health and longevity.
Oh, and it didn't sell at $1,395,000, and nobody bid on it at the auction even though it started at $595,000. So what exactly makes you think it'll go this time around?
As promised earlier today, here's a short summary of goings-on at 1616 Cornell Drive, a pointy English Tudor on a corner lot in the East End with the following vitals:
Update 4/9/09: Amusingly, the price was increased to $769,500.
Update 10/4/09: Finally a teeny tiny price drop, to $720,000, after about 7 months on the market. "New low price" my foot. ZipRealty has this listing tagged as a short sale (no surprise there).
3 bedrooms, 1 bathroom, 1,487 sqft, 4,040-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40398284, $749,500Nothing terribly interesting about this property other than its excessive price ($504 / sqft), whose only justification is the property's previous sale price under three years ago:
[...] 1929 English Tudor is in the desirable Fernside neighborhood, and walking distance to top-rated schools. [...] fine architectural details, [...] updated kitchen, lots of storage, built-in cabinetry, a wood-burning fireplace [...] much more.
Note to buyers: nothing good comes out of paying too much for your house.Property History for 1616 CORNELL Dr
Date Event Price Mar 05, 2009 Listed $749,500 Nov 17, 2006 Sold $740,000
Update 4/9/09: Amusingly, the price was increased to $769,500.
Update 10/4/09: Finally a teeny tiny price drop, to $720,000, after about 7 months on the market. "New low price" my foot. ZipRealty has this listing tagged as a short sale (no surprise there).
You may remember a hapless Victorian on a busy block of Park street nestled amidst such lovely amenities as a party store, a tire store, and a laundromat. It was on the market last spring, for no less than $925,000, and the owner was making a big deal of having spent over $120,000 on renovations. Well, what do you know, it's back as MLS(r) #40376306 for considerably less, $708,500, which is still obscenely high for that poor old wreck in that wretched location.
As much as I love Victorians and want to see them preserved, I'm afraid there isn't much to save here, even though the building itself has appealing specs (except for the tiny lot):
What blows the mind is how one goes from paying $165K for a house in 2005 to what looks a lot like a foreclosure with a loan balance half a million dollars fatter just 2 1/2 years later (Zip Realty confirms this is a foreclosure).
Update 9/3/09: It's back, again.
As much as I love Victorians and want to see them preserved, I'm afraid there isn't much to save here, even though the building itself has appealing specs (except for the tiny lot):4 bedrooms, 2 1/2 bathrooms, 2,672 sqft, 3,744-sqft lotThe sale history is edifying: not a single arms-length transaction in the bunch.
[...] As is sale. Upper level,, with hardwood floors [...] Lower level under construction, designed and approved for another 3 bedrooms.1 bath
Sale History 06/03/2008: $644,100 * 12/07/2005: $163,000 * 04/18/2003: $112,000 * No other sale data is available
What blows the mind is how one goes from paying $165K for a house in 2005 to what looks a lot like a foreclosure with a loan balance half a million dollars fatter just 2 1/2 years later (Zip Realty confirms this is a foreclosure).
Update 9/3/09: It's back, again.
Usually, when an item can't sell, its price is reduced to entice potential buyers.
Sometimes, however, it is put up for sale again at a higher price. It must be reverse psychology.
A large Victorian on Park Street with no picture showed up in the MLS again today at $925,000 (MLS #40340126):
While the owner's renovation efforts and contribution to the maintenance of Alameda's cultural patrimony are commendable, knowing how much she claims to have spent is not only completely irrelevant to the next buyer, it's in poor taste and smacks of desperation. "I'm not going to give it away! I just spent $x! You shall reward me for my efforts!"
No.
Sometimes, however, it is put up for sale again at a higher price. It must be reverse psychology.
A large Victorian on Park Street with no picture showed up in the MLS again today at $925,000 (MLS #40340126):
This property was being renovated and owner states that she has spent over $120K on renovation. Owner states that the sewer plumbing was redone recently. THIS PROPERTY NEEDS FURTHER RENOVATION AND IS BEING SOLD AS IS. This home sits at the end of the commercial and is a prime real estate areaOne trivially finds that its former incarnation languished on Zillow for over 2 months at $27,000 less:
While the owner's renovation efforts and contribution to the maintenance of Alameda's cultural patrimony are commendable, knowing how much she claims to have spent is not only completely irrelevant to the next buyer, it's in poor taste and smacks of desperation. "I'm not going to give it away! I just spent $x! You shall reward me for my efforts!"No.
Whee! A new Victorian on Mozart (MLS #40339304; link won't work until Pacunion makes the listing live) for $760,000:
There's no photo of the home yet, but the specs are nice: 3 bedrooms, 1 1/2 bathrooms, 1,658 sqft, 7,600 sqft lot.
The only problem is the $760,000 price tag, which is a bit high considering the last 3 sales on that block (private data set, which I will make available to the public shortly):
I vividly remember 1553 Mozart because it was fabulous, fairly big, with 4 bedrooms and a daring price (at the time) that got it sold within days. So 18 months later I'm not convinced a comparable neighbor priced at $760,000 is going to go all that quickly.
Given the previous transaction, though, the owners should have some wiggle room to drop the price a bit:
Lovely 1895 victorian on a tree lined street in a neighborhood filled with victorians. Home has original details, hardwood floors, cobblestone paths & pond in yard. Ceilings 12 ft high with medallions. Claw foot tub in bathroom. Full basement with water filtration systemMozart is definitely a fabulous "tree lined street"--you can barely see the houses from the sidewalk. It's a lovely block.
The only problem is the $760,000 price tag, which is a bit high considering the last 3 sales on that block (private data set, which I will make available to the public shortly):| 1537 Mozart St. | 3 | 2 | 1,650 | 22-Jun-06 | $749,000 | $755,000 | $458 |
| 1553 Mozart Street | 4 | 2 | 1,407 | 10-Oct-06 | $694,000 | $700,000 | $498 |
| 1535 Mozart Street | 3 | 2 | 1,959 | 29-Apr-08 | $619,000 | $652,000 | $333 |
I vividly remember 1553 Mozart because it was fabulous, fairly big, with 4 bedrooms and a daring price (at the time) that got it sold within days. So 18 months later I'm not convinced a comparable neighbor priced at $760,000 is going to go all that quickly.
Given the previous transaction, though, the owners should have some wiggle room to drop the price a bit:
ZESTIMATE®: $683,000
- Value Range: $566,890 - $751,300
- 30-day change: -$7,500
Last sale and tax info
- Sold 10/14/1987: $61,000
- 2007 Property Tax: $1,922
Update 6/22/08: After not selling for 2 months, the sellers decided to drop raise the price t $795,000. What the hell?
Update 8/8/08: "Huge price reduction" from $795,000 to... $779,000. Come on, people.
Update 8/8/08 again: Looks like there was a huge price reduction in the MLS ($650,000), but the craigslist post isn't consistent with it.
Update 4/03/09: Seems the auction was consummated.
Update 8/8/08: "Huge price reduction" from $795,000 to... $779,000. Come on, people.
$779000 OPEN Sun 8/10 2pm-4pm with Huge Price Reduction (alameda)
Reply to: carmar00@sbcglobal.net
Date: 2008-08-08, 7:04AM PDT
Update 8/8/08 again: Looks like there was a huge price reduction in the MLS ($650,000), but the craigslist post isn't consistent with it.
Update 8/31/08: Per RealtyTrac, a house on Mozart with the exact same square footage and lot size is scheduled to go up for auction on September 11, 2008 at noon. The amount owed on the note is $700,023.
Update 4/03/09: Seems the auction was consummated.
Miscellaneous