August 25, 2008
Heritage Fillmore: And Then There Were Five (And Up To $230K Off)
From the Heritage on Fillmore sales office in June by way of a plugged-in reader:
Thank you to all who participated in our Heritage on Fillmore survey. The feedback we received was very informative. You spoke, and we listened. Price was your biggest concern, so we are answering this concern with some amazing pricing specials on our remaining 7 homes!
> 1104, 1 Bed/1 Bath, -$42,000, Now $695,000
> Penthouse 1-E, 1 Bed/1 Bath, -$40,000, Now $690,000
> 604, 2 Bed/2 Bath, -$46,000, Now $765,000
> 1003, 2 Bed/2 Bath, -$50,000, Now $825,000
> 1102, 2 Bed/2 Bath, -$40,000, Now $975,000
> Penthouse 2-C, 2 Bed/2 Bath, -$65,000, Now $905,000
> Penthouse 2-A, 2 Bed+/2 Bath, -$100,000, Now $1,125,000
To further increase the value of these homes, they've been upgraded to include hardwood flooring, designer carpeting, stainless steel appliances, large capacity washer & dryer, refrigerator, indoor exclusive use parking and much more!
It's two months later, and while two have sold, it's even more amazing pricing on the last five:
> 1104, Reduced another $45,000 and SOLD
> Penthouse 1-E, Reduced another $40,000, Now $650,000
> 604, SOLD
> 1003, Still asking $825,000
> 1102, Reduced another $25,000, Now $950,000
> Penthouse 2-C, Reduced another $15,000, Now $890,000
> Penthouse 2-A, Reduced another $130,000, Now $995,000
And yes, that's now a total of $230,000 off (plus upgrades) for Penthouse 2-A.
First Published: August 25, 2008 10:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
"To further increase the value of these homes, they've been upgraded to include hardwood flooring, designer carpeting, stainless steel appliances, large capacity washer & dryer, refrigerator, indoor exclusive use parking and much more!"
This is what makes analyzing RE really difficult. These units not only had their price dropped, they were UPGRADED as well. so their true loss of baseline value is higher than the sales price would indicate.
Posted by: ex SF-er at August 25, 2008 10:25 AM
the neighborhood sucks at any price
Posted by: jennifer t at August 25, 2008 10:33 AM
well thank goodness SF has been 'relatively immune' to a the housing downturn, has seen 'the worst' of the price declines in SF, and the whole silly housing bust is behind us.
Otherwise someone might assume that since the spring/summer selling season is basically over these places are likely to sit until spring of 09 and experience further reductions.
Posted by: badlydrawnbear at August 25, 2008 11:08 AM
This is becoming a great neighborhood, but the bureaucratic concrete bunkered mess that has been made of the neighborhood in the name of "progress" still has a ways to go. I wouldn't say the neighborhood "sucks" though, not at all, perfect for somebody who wants to be around tons of life, live entertainment, and jazz (as well as the Safeway parking lot shootings)
Posted by: sf at August 25, 2008 11:42 AM
Good neighborhood, bad building. I toured these units and the finishes are terrible. If I somehow accidentally purchased one, I'd be ripping out everything down to bare concrete.
Posted by: Jeffrey W. Baker at August 25, 2008 12:13 PM
1-2 blocks away is SF's equivalent of Watts. This area is getting better from Post to Eddy as long as you stay on Fillmore. But i don't think the prices reflect the risk people are taking living in the neighbor. Not just personal crime risk, but the risk that the overrall area doesn't get any better. Certainly, Yoshi's and this building in general helps, but the area has been up and coming since the 70s.
Those 1bdr should be priced below $500k, IMHO
Posted by: spencer at August 25, 2008 1:05 PM
I am not familiar with the area, but generally speaking, I like small buildings with 2-5 units much more than bigger buildings.
yet, I seem to be alone to think that way. For those big buildings in SOMA, I can't never understand why they would be so pricy. if I had thay type of money ($800K to $1M), I'd much rather buy something in Pac height etc.
Posted by: 11223 at August 25, 2008 1:12 PM
For $800k, I can't never think you get much in Pac Heights. ;-)
Posted by: Foolio at August 25, 2008 1:19 PM
My wife and I looked several times at this development. We like the location (close to Japantown/Fillmore St./Safeway/ClubOne/Muni to FiDi) and thought the unit/building layout was no worse than any other square-box condo space. We were looking before any of the priced reductions, however, and, after visiting on three separate occasions and clearly showing interest, finally confided to one of the developer's selling agents that we thought the prices were too high. We gave exactly the reasons that others specified here: the development is asking for established-area prices in a still-gentrifying neighborhood. The agent's immediate response--seemingly pre-prepared, in fact--was that we were racist to think the building was overpriced, saying, among other things, "Sometimes people see black folks, assume they're in an unsafe neighborhood, and are scared off."
The agent was enough to scare us off and we never went back. Interestingly enough, the same agent continued to leave us messages telling us about the price reductions until (we learned later) she was let go. If the 2bdrms dropped into the low 700Ks, we might still be interested.
Posted by: Mark at August 25, 2008 1:30 PM
You can probably get a nice 2bd condo in Pac. In other words, I think these SOMA condo are at a ver comparable price level as Pac, when I'd think that they should be 20%-30% less.
Posted by: 11223 at August 25, 2008 1:32 PM
I looked at a 3/2 condo in Pac Heights this weekend that is on the market for just under $1M. Granted, it is on a busy street and has no parking, but it is big and on a big lot.
Posted by: NoeValleyJim at August 25, 2008 2:06 PM
I had the joy of living in the rental development on Eddy and Fillmore and rapidly got used to the drive by shootings and gang bangers hanging out on the corners. You couldn't pay me enough to live anywhere near that neighborhood again.
Then again, if you need to roll out of bed and score some crack quickly, it is defintely the place to be.
Posted by: exsfr at August 25, 2008 2:52 PM
just a clarification: exsfr isn't me.
Posted by: ex SF-er at August 25, 2008 3:17 PM
@NVJ: Why would being on a big lot be a positive for a condo?
Posted by: Foolio at August 25, 2008 4:46 PM
You said the other day you owned five properties--but today you said (above):
"if I had thay type of money ($800K to $1M), I'd much rather buy something in Pac height etc."
If you don't have that type of money, how can you own five properties? Is there some problem with your liquidity? Is that why you whine about your one rent-controlled TIC you think could be generating you $642 more a month? A lousy $642 more a month is chump change for someone who "owns" five properties, right?.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 25, 2008 4:58 PM
It is a "condo" in that it is one of three in the building. The big back yard looked like it might be nice for the kids to play in.
I am used to tiny Noe lots, the ones in Pac Heights are quite a bit bigger.
Posted by: NoeValleyJim at August 25, 2008 5:43 PM
Are you seriously asking, or are you just trying to waste every body's time here?
I don't know how much financial background you have, but to me, it is all simple math. I work hard, save hard, use some leverage, made some bold financial decisions, and that is why I am where I am today financial. What is so hard to understand??
So, you are either thinking that I lied to get financing, or you are thinking that I lied about how many properties I have??
Posted by: 11223 at August 25, 2008 5:52 PM
It is partially because I care for every dollar that I get to where I am today. That is why I "whine" about $642. got it??
Posted by: 11223 at August 25, 2008 5:56 PM
In regard to 11223, you are confusing RE wealth and cash wealth. Someone who buys RE property is sometimes not very liquid (but he should). When you are buying and renovating, either you use debt or you burn cash. And 642/month is not pocket change for a 5-property venture. This is the kind of level where most landords still do the paint themselves, do a bit of wood work and other easy stuff.
In the long run, the success always lies on a few basic principles: low cost (purchase / maintenance) and good steady rent. Of course, the lower you can get the property for, the stronger your business will be. Especially since you cannot really control the rent price. It will be whatever the market can bear, plus it might be pegged once you sign a lease.
Posted by: San fronziScheme at August 25, 2008 5:59 PM
My husband and I were some of the first tenants in the Fillmore Center 1735 O'Farrell in Oct 1989. The neighborhood was sketchy then... we stayed until Jan 1996. I seriously cannot imagining paying anything like $650,000. for this hood even now!
Posted by: Portalheights at August 25, 2008 8:37 PM
$642 a month extra adds, depending on the valuation, anywhere from $115,000 to $160,000 to 11223's equity in her properties, which in turn, with leverage, allows her to add another $350,000 to $640,000 worth of properties to her portfolio. I bet Anonymous never learned to multiply, not even with a calculator.
Posted by: chuckie at August 25, 2008 9:17 PM
You know guys, I really like this website. Folks like you, chuckie, certainly helps to make this website a lot of fun, but even Anonymous made me laugh sometimes, in his perpetual efforts/attempts to catch me as a lier.
I guess that not only are the San Francisco architures lovely, the SF people are too. Won't you agree? Of couse, with the exception of TIC renters.........
Posted by: 11223 at August 25, 2008 9:32 PM
one more comment on the fabeled $642. that amount covers about $100,000 in your debt service.
i know, as i was thrilled when i had two recent tenant turnovers and increased my cashflow by $1000/mo- that sure helps justify the leveraged position i'm in with several SF properties i own. rent matters!
Posted by: 44yo hipster at August 25, 2008 10:09 PM
11223 - what's wrong with TIC renters? Did they cheat or lie or something?
Posted by: anon at August 25, 2008 10:38 PM
San FonziScheme is, of course, correct, but, if $642 a month is the difference between profit and loss, my opinion is that landlord is in the wrong business.
Besides, the days of "leveraging up" and borrowing huge amounts of money are over. What lender will allow her to add $350,000 to $640,000 to her "portfolio" right now? Maybe IndyMac?
Most of you people behave as if debt is wealth. It isn't. You also think like it's 2005. It's not.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 26, 2008 5:36 AM
anon, where did your sense of humor go? can't you tell I was joking??
Anonymous, $642/month is now the difference between profit or loss for me. With a purchase price of $625K, 225K down payment, interest rate of 7.5%, rental of $2842, go figure. Show us all here that you have some very basic math skills.
Posted by: 11223 at August 26, 2008 8:54 AM
^^^But it's not. You've continually stated that rents are higher here because of rent control, so you would never be getting that $642 under any circumstance.
Posted by: anon at August 26, 2008 9:02 AM
what are you trying to say here? you totally lost me?
Posted by: 11223 at August 26, 2008 9:14 AM
You've said that rent control prevents you from getting that $642 of rent that "free market" rent would provide you. Yet you've also said that rent control has pushed rent up considerably higher than it should be, meaning that one of two things can happen:
A. We have rent control and you can't collect that $642
B. We don't have rent control and rents wouldn't be as high, meaning you couldn't collect that $642.
You're not "out" anything.
Posted by: anon at August 26, 2008 9:54 AM
Ok, I see what you are saying here, and it is probably true.
What if it is a condo, then I get to collect market rate, like my short sale in RH.
Posted by: 11223 at August 26, 2008 10:02 AM
^^^Then you have the best of both worlds. Higher rent and no restrictions on raising rent.
Posted by: anon at August 26, 2008 10:10 AM
why did your tenant move recently?
Posted by: 11223 at August 26, 2008 10:31 AM
By the way, 11223, if you think you can get $3,500 a month free-market rent on the TIC but you're limited by the rent-control law to getting $2842, that's an extra $658 a month you think you're missing, not $642.
It's called subtraction, and it's one of the basic math skills.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 26, 2008 1:36 PM
Posted by: Kevin Gueco at August 26, 2008 2:45 PM
Anonymous, You are the one that came up with the $642/month. I did not correct you since i called it a "minor mistake".
Now, I will bypass your math skills, why don't you show us some basic common sense, or even some proof of memory will be sufficient for now.
Posted by: 11223 at August 26, 2008 3:49 PM
No, 12233, I'm right. You're still short $642 a month rent, plus another $16 a month rent.
I think it's hilarious that you still argued using the $642 number, and didn't notice until
I did the math for you.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 26, 2008 7:37 PM