May 27, 2008

A Neighbor Notices Another Noe Valley Apple On The Tree: 326 Valley

326 Valley

From a plugged-in tipster (who earns our accolades for thoroughness):

The stagers just left. Looks like my neighbors across the street are moving. 326 Valley St. Asking $1.495M.
Sales history: 6/21/2005 ($1,400,000); 11/02/2001 ($995,000); 1/16/1997 ($460,000); 7/24/1996 ($270,000) - contractor bought and put house through major renovations - added master suite (600 sq. ft.) on ground floor.
Improvements since 1997: upgraded kitchen cabinets and counters, better landscaping in the rear, but nothing major/structural. Worth noting: in 2007 the property next door went from eyesore teardown to new (contextual infill) condos.

It's not a perfectly clean apple (on account of the neighborhood improvement next door), but we'll consider it one nonetheless. So...Noe Valley, single-family, remodeled, "sweet spot" price point, predictions?

And once again, anybody care to acknowledge how the “median sales price” in Noe Valley has changed since the last sale of this home? The change in value should match, right?

∙ Listing: 326 Valley (3/2) - $1,495,000 [John Roach]

First Published: May 27, 2008 1:00 PM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

Records show the property as 1340sf. Does that include the 600sf added master suite?

Posted by: San FronziScheme at May 27, 2008 1:16 PM

I'm sure it will go significantly above asking.

Posted by: Foolio at May 27, 2008 1:28 PM

If really only 1340 sf., that's a problem for seller at this price point. My guess: it will sell for about $900 psf

Posted by: sanfrantim at May 27, 2008 1:53 PM

With the master suite and hallway added in '97, I believe it's closer to 2100sf now.

Posted by: bats at May 27, 2008 2:17 PM

OMG - you call that staging? I think it will go at asking or a little under. The kitchen looks like it needs to be remodeled again. I don't understand why there is not a photo of the landscaped yard. Yards are critical in the evaluation of a SFH purchase. I don't know - I don't see anything special about this property.

Posted by: bigidea at May 27, 2008 2:29 PM

@bigidea:

Well, perhaps you're right, but NV is much hotter now than it was two years ago, by nearly all accounts, so you'd expect the floor would be $1.4M. And they're not building any more land, right?

I predict suspect some Googlenaire will snap it up for $1.65M or so.

In fact, I keep waiting for someone to chime in on this thread and tell us it's already in escrow...

Posted by: Foolio at May 27, 2008 2:35 PM

1.35 M

Posted by: Spencer at May 27, 2008 2:42 PM

LOL. Similar to your $1.25M prediction for the Castro st. property, huh? I see you working, Spencer. When there are no stakes why not go out on a limb and be wrong by 150-200K? Who's really counting virtual hills of beans?

Posted by: fluj at May 27, 2008 2:47 PM

Well, using my patented lazy-person's google stock price indicator, we would expect this house to go for 2007 prices, whatever that is (which is to say, don't expect a bahgain).

Based on the sale's history alone (haven't seen the house), it goes fast. I love the sailboat staging (a picture *and* a model, we get it!) with the bars on the windows :)

I don't know if Foolio was being facetious, but all you need to bring to the table for this is a few 100k, which currently is pretty easy to come by from the google industrial complex (and anyone who has owned property for a few years). Sucks for renters, but those are the facts until/if we have a tech recession.

These houses seem to be turning awfully soon, tho.
I'd love to know why the current folks were moving, etc. Anybody know?

Posted by: dub dub at May 27, 2008 2:54 PM

c'mon fluj,

b/c spencer is so used to finding 2bd/2ba apartments in pac hgts for $2,200 he does not live in the same reality as the rest of us.

Posted by: paco at May 27, 2008 2:54 PM

- "OMG - you call that staging?"

Chuckle. I think the photos on the Realtor site are placeholders -- I recognize them from the previous time the house was up for sale. I think the counters are solid stone now, not stone tiles. My guess is more current photos will show up by the time this hits the MLS.

Posted by: bats at May 27, 2008 2:56 PM

Castro property looked much more attractive (at least based on the pictures)

Posted by: bigidea at May 27, 2008 3:23 PM

spencer is so used to finding 2bd/2ba apartments in pac hgts for $2,200

It depends on what you call PacHeights. The industry standard or the reality?

Posted by: San FronziScheme at May 27, 2008 3:27 PM

Lower Pac Heights, Cathedral Hill, whatever. 2br 2ba for 2220? You'd be lucky to find that in the Mission. Maybe on Lyon and Sutter if you are lucky and a single male.

[Editor's Note: And now back to 326 Valley. Or perhaps the change in Noe Valley's Median Sales Price since 2005 (which people seem to be avoiding).]

Posted by: fluj at May 27, 2008 3:45 PM

I think it will go for bang on asking - a slight increase over last sale.

Then no doubt endless thread of how much it cost them to live there per day etc etc blah blah ad infiniteum.

Posted by: REpornaddict at May 27, 2008 3:51 PM

I've always called the peak of the market third quarter of 2005, so assuming a month or two escrow period on the June 2005 sale, this one had a tiny bit of that rampant 2005 appreciation before the market sputtered. Asking or a tad higher is my guess without looking at much other data.

Posted by: Miles at May 27, 2008 3:56 PM

or sacramento and buchanan.

I'm not sure what my rent has to do with this conversation.

Posted by: Spencer at May 27, 2008 3:58 PM

or your credibility...

Posted by: paco at May 27, 2008 4:02 PM

OK S.S.,

In 2005 SFRs averaged 763 per foot and $1.304M sp.

So far this year it is 849 per foot and $1.611 sp.

Posted by: fluj at May 27, 2008 4:07 PM

@dub dub:

Not being facetious, and I stand by my $1.65M prediction, since prices are up in NV since 2005. Someone else can probably supply the actual numbers, but I think the average sales price in NV is probably up at least 15% (total, not annualized) from 2005, which is where I got my $1.65M.

Posted by: Foolio at May 27, 2008 4:14 PM

Actually--if the bidding hasn't yet closed, I'd like to increase that to $1.725M, because of the improvement next door that I forgot about. Tearing down the eyesore ought to be worth at least $75k alone.

Posted by: Foolio at May 27, 2008 4:17 PM

foolio,

if you are taking bets, i would like to take you up on that $1.725mm price.

I would bet dinner on the under.....

Posted by: sky at May 27, 2008 4:54 PM

So fluj, if you stand by the figures you just posted, you appear to be predicting one of the following:

(a) > $1.73 million (based on 23.5% increase in median sales price + whatever benefit from tearing down the eyesore)
(b) > $1.56 million (based on 11.3% increase in per square foot price + whatever benefit from tearing down the eyesore)
(c) < $1.55 million because at least a portion of the increase in median prices is support (i.e., the frequent S.S. editorial position)

Out of curiosity, which of the three is it?

Posted by: anon at May 27, 2008 5:30 PM

Now guys quit fussing at each other. My bet is that $1.55 will get it, but put the bid in soon.

Posted by: Oceangoer at May 27, 2008 5:37 PM

I didn't predict anything. A question was raised and I provided some data.

I'm not going to make a prediction on this property without viewing it first. However high this one will go is gonna have a lot to do with how nice the 600 foot master down came out. Often folks want 3 brs on one floor for anything above $1.5M, so a straight extrapolation of average or median $$psqft won't work. But if it's in fact really nice, then hey, it might just catch people's fancy. It seems to be sort of high up on Valley, so the subterranean effect people generally dislike might be a bit muted.

I haven't seen it tho, so I can't call it.

Posted by: fluj at May 27, 2008 5:46 PM

Wow. I'm clearly missing something in the history with Spencer. Someone can estimate 150k or so over asking and someone can estimate 150k under. So ridicule the person that is 150k under? Am I missing something in previous history or is this just a matter of ridiculing anyone who isn't bullish on SF housing.
And wait a second, they're not building anymore land in SF?

Posted by: anon11 at May 27, 2008 5:54 PM

previous history.

like saying you are paying $2,200/mo for a 2bd/2ba in pac hgts and then saying you do not think that is below market and how you were offered other similar rents etc...

if you read spence's posts you will find a pattern that you can overlay upon reality as long as that reality is from 5years ago.

not ridicule really...

Posted by: paco at May 27, 2008 6:01 PM

Hey anon - you've obviously forgotten that we've reached a new permanently high plateau. Buy now or be priced out forever!

Posted by: anonagain at May 27, 2008 6:02 PM

For those who like their apples even more finely spaced, who can explain 455 27th Street? It's a 4 bedroom, 3 bath SFR. It sold 3/18/2008 for $2,550,000 after 106 days on the market, down from a $2,595,000 listing price. It's back on the market at $2,575,000.

Posted by: Noe 94131 at May 27, 2008 6:06 PM

"So ridicule the person that is 150k under?"

It was just that he did the same thing last week. Spencer knows what he's doing and it is actually humourous. Lighten up.

Posted by: fluj at May 27, 2008 6:12 PM

yo noe94131,

"For those who like their apples even more finely spaced, who can explain 455 27th Street? It's a 4 bedroom, 3 bath SFR. It sold 3/18/2008 for $2,550,000 after 106 days on the market, down from a $2,595,000 listing price. It's back on the market at $2,575,000."

i can explain it a coupla ways: trying to sell a premium product with high transaction friction (loans, commissions, appraisals)
during an unprecedented world wide credit crunch after owning it for a few months could be hazardous to your pocketbook, or, if you want a 4/3 in outer noe valley in 2008 you will be required to pay double what you would have paid back in 2000 or so.

Posted by: paco at May 27, 2008 6:54 PM

I don't think this goes for list. I don't think it's actually in that great of an area..steep hill, etc. It's a SFH so it's got that going for it, but at $1.5 you also have a world of amazingly good condo's (all across the city) for that price with probably same / better sq ft, etc. So that's my take.
Caveat: haven't seen the 'improved' pics nor the surrounding area...but just looks like a steep area.

Posted by: Dan at May 27, 2008 7:55 PM

I'll guess $1.54M. Don't know Noe historical prices well - Fluj- is that data you have for Noe specifically (dist 5C) ?

I see the current owner remodeled the kitchen in 06 for an estimated $50K per permit records. Pretty shabby job for that cost. And the fact that the owner pulled permits to replace his kitchen faucet = not too r.e. savvy. I'm sure missionite's spreadsheet wouldn't make the seller very happy about his investment in restrospect.

Marketing sheet and pictures seem amateurish as others have mentioned. Please spell Marina correctly.

Posted by: resp at May 27, 2008 7:59 PM

"Wow. I'm clearly missing something in the history with Spencer. Someone can estimate 150k or so over asking and someone can estimate 150k under. So ridicule the person that is 150k under? Am I missing something in previous history or is this just a matter of ridiculing anyone who isn't bullish on SF housing. "

that has been my experience. if you are realistic in pricing, then you are ridiculed.

i tried to share my personal experience my own rent pricing and those of my friends and my credibility is called into question. Apparently if you share the truth that mortgages costs 2x more than rent, you are singled out as "not credible"

Posted by: spencer at May 27, 2008 9:13 PM

let craigslist decide!

gotta love the internet for credibility checks...

Posted by: paco at May 27, 2008 9:49 PM

Spencer,

If you can find PacHeight 2/2 for $2200/month as regular market price, you should be an rental property broker and you can make a killing...because apparently, nobody else can get that kind of price.

Posted by: John at May 27, 2008 10:07 PM

I will tell you what I think after I take a look. Things seem kind of soft this spring.

Posted by: NoeValleyJim at May 27, 2008 10:15 PM

I don't get it. How could 326 Valley (you know - with the sailboats) go for more than this house - 438 Duncan - which closed on 4/30/08 for $1.385?

http://209.200.84.216/agents/sfnewletter_listingdetail.cfm?MID=337674&SiteID=99999

Posted by: bigidea at May 27, 2008 11:57 PM

foolio,

i will even take you up on your lower price of $1.65MM...i will take the under for dinner or a nice bottle of wine

Posted by: sky at May 28, 2008 8:22 AM

This is a bit of the main direction this thread has taken, but I'll interject one observation. The kitchen photos to me are a giveaway of the crappy nature of the remodel: they used granite tile, as opposed to granite slab.

To me, it's a telltale sign of cheaping out on the remodeling. It should at least give you pause about the quality of the rest of the remodel.

Posted by: greater fool at May 28, 2008 9:08 AM

resp,

Fluj- is that data you have for Noe specifically (dist 5C) ?

Yes.

Spencer,

When you are continually off by about 150-200K or so, how can you say "realistic" ? I can recall off the top of my head that you were around 150-200K off on the 30th street property, the Castro property (most likely), and now you predict this one similarly? No big deal. I mean, like I said, I see you working. You think that's what the price should be. But come on man, "realistic" ?

Posted by: fluj at May 28, 2008 9:27 AM

Oceangoer

Ok, here's my new estimate and answer to the editor's question:

- 2005 Noe SFH avg value (per Fluj) = $763/sqft.
- Subject property 2005 valuation assuming 1940 sq ft and $1.4M actual sales price = $721/sqft.
- 2005 subject's discount to average was 5.5%. I'm gonna raise that to a 6% discount for '08 because the improvements seem to lack the high end finishes that other properties may have added. A constant discount is also warranted because the master BR is downstairs (I think) and the square footage of 1940 is just slightly greater than average of 1897 for 08 SFH sales there.
- 2008 Noe SFH avg value (per Fluj) = $849/sqft. apply a 6% discount or $798/sqft x 1940 sq feet = my sales estimate of $1.548M.

Since we can be pretty sure the owner put in $50 of remodeling that's about 6.8% appreciation in 2 years, apples-to-apples.

just my guess. of course the positive appreciation of the home IMO is no where near what the owners really lost vs. renting in hindsight. but we don't need to get into that discussion again.

Posted by: resp at May 28, 2008 10:21 AM

"When you are continually off by about 150-200K or so, how can you say "realistic" ? I can recall off the top of my head that you were around 150-200K off on the 30th street property, the Castro property (most likely), and now you predict this one similarly? No big deal. I mean, like I said, I see you working. You think that's what the price should be. But come on man, "realistic" ?"

Ok, should use the term "fair value" instead of realistic. It astounds me that some people are still overpaying for properties with the majority of option ARMs in SF resetting in 2009. Maybe they are getting a corporate move or just are insanely wealthy. i jsut don't see how any peroson on his right mind with any type of budget is willing to overpay when there is a reasonable chance that the property will be worth 10% less in 1.5 yrs

Posted by: Spencer at May 28, 2008 10:22 AM

@sky:

Thanks, but I don't feel as confident now as I did yesterday, and the conventional wisdom seems to be running against me...maybe just a case of (fake) buyer's remorse? ;-)

When fluj and even NV Jim are lowering expectations, you can surmise that something may be amiss. Although I don't understand why, since this seems like a perfectly fine property, and the only change since 2005 has been an improvement in the situation next door.

Posted by: Foolio at May 28, 2008 10:23 AM

sorry not meant for Oceangoer specifically. and I meant $50K of remodeling which was gleaned from the permit records

Posted by: resp at May 28, 2008 10:24 AM

Foolio,

No worries. I hope this goes for a lot but I drove by it this morning and I am going to have to agree with Big Idea.

I can't see how this goes for much more than 438 Duncan. 438 is a victorian and on a better, dead end street.

This block of valley is a bit odd to me, so i would be pleasantly surprised if this went for more than list..

Posted by: sky at May 28, 2008 10:35 AM

"When fluj and even NV Jim are lowering expectations"

I didn't go there, tho, and merely said I don't know because I had not seen it. A good house with 3 brs on the same floor, 2 1/2 ba, interior garage access, a yard, and views can reasonably expect ~850 a foot on that block. But is this that?

Posted by: fluj at May 28, 2008 10:49 AM

"with the majority of option ARMs in SF resetting in 2009."

Link?

Posted by: mk92 at May 28, 2008 10:59 AM

Option ARM's are re-setting lower.

Posted by: sparky at May 28, 2008 11:11 AM

"Option ARM's are re-setting lower."

It's a fair point, but many are also going from interest-only to P&I.

Posted by: mk92 at May 28, 2008 11:17 AM

Some people have also done what the option arm was meant for as well. Make more money in 5 years than you do now. I have done that, and am paying down my mortgage.

Posted by: sparky at May 28, 2008 11:37 AM

ditto sparky.

Posted by: resp at May 28, 2008 12:00 PM

"let craigslist decide!

gotta love the internet for credibility checks..."

Yes, Craiglist is the beacon of credibility..

I don't know anyone who pays the price that apts are listed for on CL. But maybe there are people out there that don't know the prices are set artificially high and can be easily negotiated.

I know my 2bdr in pac Heights is no longer FMV at $2200, but it was in mid 06 as that's when i got it.

Another similar 2bd 2ba w/ parking did just rent in my building for $2900. That's sure as hell as lot less than the $1M price tag ($6000+/mo)for the 2bdr i have seen for sale within a couple of blocks.

housing proces are artifially out of whack and im quite sure that you know that paco.

Posted by: Spencer at May 28, 2008 2:15 PM

Spencer - I've got your back on everything you say! You're not only realistic, but sane. 99% of these people on SS have a financial interest in keeping prices high. What makes me laugh is that they seem to be so busy convincing people to spend all their $ on SF real estate that they haven't stepped out of the city to see that the rest of the world is laughing at us.

As the apartment manager for a beautiful 12-unit bldg. in Cow Hollow for 6 years (I moved out 1 yr ago), I rented 1/1 apartments on a regular basis. In 2001, which we considered peak renting time in SF after the build-up throughout the dotcom days, a 1/1 would go for $1400-1500. In the past few years, as the rental market got more competitive, they would go for $1300. This included parking and some had complete views of the GG Bridge. All were great 1920-30s style with hardwood floors and built-ins, walk in closets, period bathrooms, very well-kept, water/garbage/HEAT included. I don't have any friends in need of a 2/2 (space-wise or budget-wise), but I have many friends who have rented 1/1s in the last two yrs. - in Pac. Heights (Jackson & Webster)=$1600, Cow Hollow (Franklin & Union)= $1300, Noe V (Castro & 27th)= $1200, etc.

Can Spencer pay $2200 for a 2/2? YES
Does that have to be considered "below market"? NO

Wasn't the recent fiasco on Minna (Natoma?) a good lesson for everyone? = young couple buys a multi-unit building, pays so much that they have to evict everyone because the rents no where near meet the mortgage payment, things go very bad... I've done the math countless times = 6 unit building goes on sale in the Marina down the street from me. 6 2/2 units. Asking price was $4 million. Do the math! Just to cover the basic mortgage you would need to charge $6000 per unit per month. Then there's taxes, upkeep, insurance (a small fortune on it's own), etc. Not only would anyone in their right mind pay $6000/month for a 2/2, but the thought of paying $3000/month to live with a roommate?!? Absurd. Wake up.

"Maybe they are getting a corporate move or just are insanely wealthy." Or maybe they just THINK they are wealthy because these SS-types tell them they can afford it. Karma? What's that?

Posted by: rg at May 29, 2008 2:04 PM

wow rg,

my experience has been different- one bedrooms around here (nopa) go for $1,600-$2,000

maybe those investors who are looking at $4m buildings ought to be calling you for advice.

Posted by: paco at May 29, 2008 2:22 PM

rg, i know you and spencer are very good at getting the good deals.
but if you check out craigslist right now you'll have a hard time finding ANY one bedrooms in cow hollow/pac hgts/nopa etc..for the prices you quote. i'm understanding why you and spencer stick together...

Posted by: paco at May 29, 2008 2:37 PM

"Noe V (Castro & 27th)= $1200, etc...."

The Noe Valley Voice published the average rents in Noe Valley for the past 2 months (Mar-Apr 2008), derived from Craigslist listings. The average 1 bedroom was $2008/month, and average 2 bedroom was $3133/month.

Even if renters are getting their places for below Craigslist asking prices, $1200/month is very low for Noe Valley.

Posted by: Dan at May 29, 2008 3:45 PM

I agree with Dan. There are no 1/1's near 27th and Castro for $1200/month. Last year, a friend grabbed a 1/1 in that area for $1600 -- and he was very lucky. It was on Craig's List for about 10 minutes before he arrived at the apartment, checkbook in hand. And that was in April 07. Rents have only increased since.

Posted by: sanfrantim at May 29, 2008 3:51 PM

"rg, i know you and spencer are very good at getting the good deals.
but if you check out craigslist right now you'll have a hard time finding ANY one bedrooms in cow hollow/pac hgts/nopa etc..for the prices you quote. i'm understanding why you and spencer stick together..."

PACO,
why are you spewing such negativity towards me? I have only posted what i have personally experienced. Do you want to supress any experience or opinion that differs from yours? I am pretty sure that you know that housing prices are out of line with rents (even for SF), yet you are attacking and ridiculing. Relax.

Posted by: Spencer at May 29, 2008 4:14 PM

Last time I looked at a newspaper, the rents seemed to be pretty much the same as craigslist apartment ads. If not the newspaper or CL, then where should folks be looking?

If you say, "Drive around a neighborhood looking for 'For Rent' signs" well guess what? That's not "the market." That's taking advantage of a lazy landlord or two.

Posted by: fluj at May 29, 2008 4:31 PM

I rented 1/1 apartments on a regular basis. In 2001, which we considered peak renting time in SF after the build-up throughout the dotcom days, a 1/1 would go for $1400-1500. In the past few years, as the rental market got more competitive, they would go for $1300. This included parking and some had complete views of the GG Bridge. All were great 1920-30s style with hardwood floors and built-ins, walk in closets, period bathrooms, very well-kept, water/garbage/HEAT included. I don't have any friends in need of a 2/2 (space-wise or budget-wise), but I have many friends who have rented 1/1s in the last two yrs. - in Pac. Heights (Jackson & Webster)=$1600, Cow Hollow (Franklin & Union)= $1300, Noe V (Castro & 27th)= $1200, etc.

============================================

Cow Hollow, Castro, $1300, parking, heat included, GG bridge views, walk-in closets, hardwood floors.

I think u are talking about another city. Another city that has a Cow Hollow and a Castro etc.

U are really full of it. Paco is right. U have zero credibility.

Posted by: mac at May 29, 2008 4:31 PM

SFgate currently lists zero 1 Brs in Noe Valley for under $1700, nor Glen Park for that matter. There is one Sunnyside 1br 1ba for $1200.

Posted by: fluj at May 29, 2008 4:37 PM

Updated photos and stats for this house are now online.

http://www.326valley.com

The latest photos show the updated kitchen (not the old tiled job), the master suite, and a bit of the landscaping.

"Interior Size: 2153 sq. ft. per appraisal has not been verified."

Open house this coming Saturday and Sunday.
But if correct, then the asking price of $1.5M translates to just under $700/sf. Sounds a little low to me.

Posted by: bats at May 29, 2008 4:44 PM

My first experience of Rental was when I came into the city 2 years ago. Visited tons of places for 2K then saw a 1500 1BR on Dolores street. Not especially roomy, nothing special, and rather noisy (Dolores street, go figure). But with parking.

I was applicant #20 or so and 10 had applied before I headed back to the street. The woman who was managing for her father had grossly underpriced. I called her several times and she was on the verge of blowing a fuse with all the calls and callbacks.

In this market, you'll be lucky if you get a safe and clean place for less than 2K (1BR+). Parking, view will be extra.

Posted by: San FronziScheme at May 29, 2008 4:45 PM

It's really sad that most of you are not only so negative, but don't even sound SANE when you respond with such figures. I personally don't have any friends who could afford such rents and I certainly can't. (Btw, I moved to a cute inlaw studio in the Castro with a great backyard, plenty of free street parking and ALL utilities included, even an expensive w/d for free. I pay $1100). I'm very sorry that me and Spencer or our friends have found good "deals" (to you, but common prices to me), but to say "U are really full of it. U have zero credibility." ??? Where do you possibly get off saying something like that? I guess you have no more morals than the greedy bastards renting you your $3k 1/1s. I'll talk to my friend in the 1/1 on Castro @ 27th (he rented it last summer for $1200) and see if he minds me giving out his address. Then we can all set a good time for everyone to drive by and see it. I can't possibly ask him to let you all inside, tho he IS my closest friend, but he can wave from the front window (it's a huge window, might even be a sliding glass door -???- and it lets in great light). Hell, I'll go over too and wave.

Btw, as I've said on here before, if you really want to ponder the rents in SF, consider what recent college graduates must be doing. When I graduated and moved into the city from Berkeley in 2000, I cringed at paying $1000 after paying $500 for my college place (which I had cringed at back in 1997. Btw, it was a huge tri-level loft in Oakland/Emeryville border. I shared it with a professional 30-something. She had the first floor, I had the third mezzanine. Building is 2828 Filbert corner of 28th - I think. Drive by and check it out. Old 1900 laundry factory and was brand new construction when we moved in).

I can't imagine that new grads are looking for much more than I was. Most are probably looking for <1000 (with roommates, of course). What's going to happen to SF when all of the landlords need to charge $3k+ to cover their mortgage, but there is no one left who can afford that???

Posted by: rg at May 30, 2008 3:28 AM

RG,

I rented out a 1 br 1 ba in Bernal a few months ago for $1175. No parking. No utilities covered. But I did it knowing it was sub-market, both the current metrics and what people told me indicated so. The thing is, I did it to help out a friend in need. However when I mentioned it on here I had the likes of Spencer and maybe you -- tho I don't recall -- telling me that I was a liar and that I couldn't have gotten more if I wanted to. The sword cuts both ways.

And again, I ask. If not the newspaper or craigslist, then how? Just because you got a studio for $1000 in the Castro (a great deal? I wonder) and you know somebody else who got a 1Br for $1200 doesn't mean much. No, because it's craigslist, the newspaper, r.e. agencies, and management companies. They all routinely print rates that support what people are saying on here. Minus the negativity, that is.

Posted by: fluj at May 30, 2008 9:09 AM

And once again, back to 326 Valley (and a call for a little more respect all around).

Posted by: SocketSite at May 30, 2008 9:26 AM

yo spence/rg,
i'm sorry if you think i'm 'spewing'.

you often state that sellers are dreaming if they think they'll get such a price or that LLs are putting 'wishing prices' on their rentals. and time after time-even during a world wide credit crisis, we see places selling or renting for these prices.

so spence, i'm curious if you give credibility to rg's version of local rents?

Posted by: paco at May 30, 2008 9:43 AM

"But if correct, then the asking price of $1.5M translates to just under $700/sf. Sounds a little low to me."

i, for one, hope they get it.

Posted by: paco at May 30, 2008 9:48 AM

"so spence, i'm curious if you give credibility to rg's version of local rents?"

I think the true prices are somewhere between what the average CL listing says and what RG is saying.

I think his/her estiamtes are low, but i truly do think the majority of 1 bdr is good neighborhoods do rent at or below 2000, and the majority of 2 bdr do rent for at or below 3000.

most of my friends are 30 to 40 something high earners 150K- 400K, 80% of them rent (because it is so much cheaper) and 95% pay below the rates i listed above. Of course, this is an anecdotal pool of around 200 individuals.

Posted by: Spencer at June 2, 2008 1:04 PM

Oh no Spencer. You were sounding credible up to the last sentence. I've discussed rents and home sales prices with my friends but have had no where near 200 of these discussions in my entire life, let alone in a relevant recent time period like 1-3 years.

That's a large sample size for even a professional rent survey let alone casual chatting.

Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at June 2, 2008 1:22 PM

I for one am impressed by the relative friend volume (RFV) in Spencer's anecdote.

Posted by: fluj at June 2, 2008 1:41 PM

i'm new here. what does the term apple mean?

Posted by: llbz1 at June 5, 2008 1:50 PM

"apple" as in "apples to apples" comparison.

Trying to divine appreciation trends in the real estate market is complicated because so many homes have been upgraded since when they were last sold. So those house are "apples to oranges" comparisons and it is hard to determine whether a higher price is due the improvements or appreciation.

The "apples" here are homes that have had no upgrading.

Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at June 5, 2008 2:10 PM

thanks!!

Posted by: llbz1 at June 5, 2008 2:33 PM

326 valley just went into contract...


Posted by: sky at June 5, 2008 4:41 PM

Any idea how much?

Posted by: Insomnia at June 6, 2008 6:36 PM

wow this place went for $1.569MM.

I am shocked it went for more than 438 duncan and went for more than List.

Noe Valley continues to surprise me...

[Editor’s Note: See ">Two Snaps And A Circle For A Plugged-In Reader (326 Valley Sells).]

Posted by: joemama at July 15, 2008 1:35 PM

as I've said elsewhere, this neighborhood has shifted gears and moved into another class.

just like i will never be able to afford a 2/2 or 1500sq loft in SoHo NYC, I likewise have no shot at Noe Valley's SFH's. Unless I want to buy a garbage fixer which I then cannot afford to renovate.

some houses/neighborhoods/cities will move into different strata (both up and down) and when they do that the move has relative permanence (think years or decades).

Posted by: enonymous at July 15, 2008 1:47 PM

Enonymous,

No offense intended here, but for certain homes in certain neighborhoods you seem to indicate that the "buy now or be priced out forever" has some validity. And no, I'm not a realtor, nor have any connection to this neighborhood ... except that my wife and I love Firefly.

Posted by: Recent ORH buyer at July 15, 2008 2:23 PM

Post a comment


(required - will be published)


(required - will not be published, sold, or shared)


(optional - your "Posted by" name will link to this URL)

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


Continue Perusing SocketSite:

« Red Rover, Red Rover, Send Just The Cruise Ship Terminal Right Over | HOME | Polk Street Parking Lot Shuttered, Apartments Ready To Rise »