February 17, 2009

Two Well Designed Data Points We Wouldn't Dismiss Out Of Hand

2209 9th Avenue

Purchased for $1,126,000 in 2005, remodeled and returned to the market for $1,195,000 in June of 2008, the Henry Hill home at 2209 9th Avenue was withdrawn without selling in July. Back on the market today and listed for $995,000.

We can't call it an "apple" for a couple of reasons (including the view blocking new home next door), but we also wouldn't dismiss this well designed data point out of hand.

Speaking of well designed, and as a plugged-in reader noted last week, the Joseph Leonard designed 25 Mercedes Way has reduced its asking price to $1,979,000.

25 Mercedes Way

On the market for $1,895,000 in April of 2007 and sold for $2,200,000 in May, this updated Arts & Crafts home in Ingleside Terrace returned to the market in October of 2008 with a few updates and originally asking $2,099,000.

∙ Listing: 2209 9th Avenue (2/1) - $995,000 [MLS]
∙ Listing: 25 Mercedes Way (5/3) - $1,979,000 [MLS]
Mid-Century Modern That’s Been Remodeled: 2209 9th Avenue [SocketSite]
Another Mid-Century Modern Casualty: A Shift In Tastes Or Appetites? [SocketSite]
We’re Buying It (The Description Not The House) [SocketSite]
Still An Architectural Work Of Art, But Still A Bidding War To Be? [SocketSite]

First Published: February 17, 2009 6:00 AM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

I like 2209 9th Ave.

I might even buy it if it wasn't for that pesky 3x income rule I won't break.

Posted by: diemos at February 17, 2009 7:40 AM

I like Mercedes Way, it was featured on Socketsite a long time ago and I thnk it sold for around 2M. Good house, strong bones.

[Editor's Note: As noted and even linked to above, last sold for $2,200,000 in May of 2007.]

Posted by: jessep at February 17, 2009 7:56 AM

diemos,

Either option #1 you make more money or option #2 you wait for prices to catch up on your income. In this economy #1 is out of the question for most. It looks like option #2 is quickly being the new reality.

Posted by: San FronziScheme at February 17, 2009 7:57 AM

I love 2209 9th Avenue. Great house, beautiful neighborhood. I will be curious to see if it sells at this price. It's a one of a kind house but price per square foot in this neighborhood, it's still very expensive and it has only 1 bathroom. There would be more of a market for it in the Castro, Noe Valley, Corona Heights, etc.

Posted by: 94114 at February 17, 2009 8:49 AM

I have a question.

Both of these houses "feel" very suburban to me. Could someone answer a simple question for me..

What is the appeal of living in SF if you don't like urban living?

Just curious.

I live in Jackson Square, very urban, but not all of SF is like this.

Posted by: jessep at February 17, 2009 8:54 AM

Somebody made a clever comment last week about houses like these: bay area buyers who like suburban living without the superior schools and weather.

Posted by: sf at February 17, 2009 8:57 AM

"What is the appeal of living in SF if you don't like urban living?"

The appeal is not having to drive across the bridge or endure a long commute. Being able to enjoy the city and then to come home to a quiet peaceful environment where you don't have to listen to your neighbor's television set and stereo.

Posted by: 94114 at February 17, 2009 9:11 AM

I live between this house (9th) and the St. Francis house where that comment was made. And that comment from last week wasn't clever. Was it the same person who said that house was worth only $2.5M, or just someone agreeing, I forget? (It was in contract before the sunday open house). But anyway, the train line commute to downtown from both of these locations is faster than a lots of other areas; Noe, Cole, Richmond, Laurel hieghts, Western Addition, you name it. Also the southern commute is faster than from Noe Valley. So if one person works downtown and another somewhere south it is a great area. The availability of all the city offers is still there. I went to Zeum, Academy of Science, and Stern Grove this last weekend. West Portal has more to offer than lots of other shopping districts in the city, and tons more than the penninsula.
Is it a family area, yes. Is there anything wrong with that, no. My daughter has 5 friends that are walking distance from our house. That was not true in any other hood I lived in. Nor is it true for my nieces and nephew's on the penninsula. It's also safe, has tons of trees, and because of the hills most houses get some sort of view.

Posted by: sparky-C at February 17, 2009 9:23 AM

"What is the appeal of living in SF if you don't like urban living?"

jessep: With respect to urban living, someone living in Manhattan, London or Tokyo could ask you a very similar question...

Posted by: Willow at February 17, 2009 10:41 AM

jessep: With respect to urban living, someone living in Manhattan, London or Tokyo could ask you a very similar question...

This comment makes no sense. Is your intention just to make sure that everyone knows that Manhattan, London, and Tokyo are larger urban cities with more urban living? What does that have to do with a suburban house built in SF? jessep's living situation is every bit as urban as a place in NYC, it's just in a smaller city. It doesn't negate the question - why would someone deal with the negatives of living in SF without taking advantage of the positives?

Posted by: Brutus at February 17, 2009 10:47 AM

Willow,

I do like urban living and the weather, so I do live here and in a pretty urban area.

Posted by: jessep at February 17, 2009 10:47 AM

I think Mercedes will go quick.

486.60 psf is pretty realistic pricing for 1) this economy 2) that great area and 3) an intent to sell.

Posted by: jessep at February 17, 2009 10:51 AM

why would someone deal with the negatives of living in SF without taking advantage of the positives?

Because some are of the opinion that these areas offer the best of all worlds, urban convenience, interests and still a little bit of space to enjoy. You can walk to peets and a good meal, be downtown in 15 minutes on muni and catch a show at the filmore on the weekend without an hour commute...then when I get home, I can enjoy a cigar on my back porch with a view of the ocean...

the flipside to the question would be, why be so closed minded to the benefits of these types of areas?


Posted by: Geo at February 17, 2009 10:55 AM

^^^Asking a question about something that you don't understand would seem to me to not be "close-minded", unless I dismissed your answer.

Posted by: Brutus at February 17, 2009 11:03 AM

9th Street: not one of Henry Hill's best houses. There's no garage and the entrance is awkward, up a flight of narrow stairs. It's barely two bedrooms. The kitchen remodel is clunky.

The house next door is set back, preserving most of the original view. Unfortunately Hill oriented the house facing an empty lot which is no longer... empty.

It's small and (still) expensive.

Posted by: Rocco at February 17, 2009 11:14 AM

These places (apart from possible weather issues?) indeed may offer the best of both worlds -- not everyone is an urban fetishist!

Too bad the top is only 2/1, though it looks larger than 1204 sqft. It's also showing HOA dues of 350? Can someone elaborate?

Posted by: dub dub at February 17, 2009 11:16 AM

Jessep: we think of it as having the best of both worlds:

It's quiet (we sleep quite well with the window open). If my doorbell rings at 10pm, it's probably a neighbor who is driving by and noticed the kids left the car door open.

We have space (both our house, since $$/sq.ft is more reasonable, as well as a good sized yard). We like that for our family. Because of the yard, our kids can play outside a lot, or run down the street to their friends' house.

It's friendly and "grounded" (for lack of a better word). San Francisco is a transient city. I suspect many on SS are transplants, as are we. That's great, and part of what makes the city a dynamic place. But I love raising my family in a neighborhood where people around us have also raised their families and put down roots.

Access to the freeways (101 and 280) is quick and easy. 15 minutes to downtown FiDi, SFO, Southbay. (Marin is a pain, though). An easy walk to West Portal to catch the K,L or M, or shop and eat. In no time I can be either in the Castro or at the top of Mt. Davidson with the dogs off-leash.

Can you say parking? Got a garage, a driveway and virtually unlimited street parking. We entertain a lot, and it's much easier because friends know they can come over any time and not spend 20 minutes looking for parking.

We've got plenty of fog, it's true. But not all the time, contrary to some opinions I've seen on here. If warm sunny weather was a primary consideration this would not be the best neighborhood. But frankly, SF really wouldn't be the best city for that anyway. And we've got plenty of spectacular days when it's clear and I can see the Headlands and the Farallons (I can see Marin right now as a matter of fact!).

We enjoy all the richness of the city - opera, symphony, museums. We eat and shop and hang with friends in neighborhoods all over the city. I love the differences of the different neighborhoods, from Chestnut St. to the Mission to North Beach. And I love coming home to the quiet of the West Side.

Regarding schools, I have no interest in igniting some big debate on private vs. public. Suffice to say that we have chosen to go the private school route. Despite the price tag, it has been a terrific experience so far. Leaving school would be one of the hardest things to give up if we ever had to leave the city.

If you haven't lived in SF for long, or don't get out much, then it's easy to think of the city and its citizens as one-dimensional (or with likes and needs just like your own). And that silly prior comment about "bay area buyers who like suburban living without the superior schools and weather" suggests someone who really doesn't understand the richness and variability of cities (which, by the way, is one of the reasons why many people choose a city over a suburb).

These western neighborhoods are filled with multi-generation SF families, the ones who've been business owners, cops, firemen, teachers, doctors, etc - the people who raise their families here, ground this city and make it work on a daily basis for all the urban sophisticates who love their luxury loft/fine dining lifestyle.

Frankly, we love the fact that this part of town isn't "hot". That's what allowed us to have a great home without being house-poor (rents are reasonable too- as LMRiM has said many times). Now we could afford to live in any neighborhood in the city (or any suburb too), but we have no interest in "moving up" or out. We like the quiet, the friendliness, the slow & steady feel of this (sub)urban life that is an equal part of the city we love.

And I'm glad that others want to live in very different ways in different parts of the city - that's what makes San Francisco interesting and unique and a richer experience for everyone.

Posted by: West Side Story at February 17, 2009 12:39 PM

West Side, great answer and I agree with you.

Not my cup of tea but it seems like a great place :)

Posted by: jessep at February 17, 2009 1:18 PM

....still no goodfellas jokes?

Q: What happens when the Henry Hill house goes into contract?

A.: Someone gets whacked!

Posted by: Stu at February 17, 2009 1:26 PM

lol@Stu - well done. I thought the same thing both times the Henry Hill house was discussed here.

"All my life, I wanted to be a gangster."

Posted by: lolcat_94123 at February 17, 2009 2:13 PM

Then there was Jimmy Two Times, who got that nickname 'cause he said everything twice:

"I'm gonna go lower the asking price....lower the asking price."

Posted by: Dude at February 17, 2009 2:17 PM

Time for you wiseguys to go into protective custody.

Posted by: Rocco at February 17, 2009 5:32 PM

West Side: thanks for sharing your Ph.D. theses on San Francisco. So I think we are talking real microcosm here.

Posted by: anon at February 17, 2009 9:11 PM

2209 9th was just reduced to $939k...

Posted by: Geo at March 19, 2009 8:47 AM

Great price for that house.

Posted by: 94114 at March 19, 2009 9:13 AM

"Great price for that house."

Or as I often say as I'm standing in front of the sales rack at Macy's, "What a deal! It's been marked down from outrageous to merely ridiculous."

Posted by: diemos at March 19, 2009 9:20 AM

That is still $780ish/ft² if I recall correctly, which still seems steep for that hill...imho.

Posted by: Geo at March 19, 2009 10:17 AM

Geo,

I'm glad that you're out there and posting on these parts of SF.

I hope the data we've got on that 2209 9th Ave property is wrong. Purchased for $1.126M in 2005, and then remodelled, and now it's asking price is 16.6% below the 2005 price? Add in the commission and remodelling costs (if true), and that's officially a washout.

I'm very curious to see how much 25 Mercedes went for (assuming it closes - it shows contingent). I visited during the open house in 07, and all the buzz was that there were going to be huge overbids (which there was) and the place went after two showings for $2.2M. If I recall correctly, the condition was a tiny bit "rough", but overall pretty nice. I think they removed a wall and changed the floor when they remodelled the kitchen post purchase. I would have left it all alone - the house was nice the way it was, dated kitchen and all.

Any guesses as to selling price on 25 Mercedes? I'll guess $1.85M for the true price, but they'll wrap some closing costs into the loan so the sale will "print" at $1.89M :)

Posted by: LMRiM at March 19, 2009 11:31 AM

on 2909, I still think it is asking too much for that house, but that is waht makes a market.

on mercedes, a good realtor friend noted all the offers they are getting are 15% to 20% below ask as a starting point.. given this, I figured $1.8 print, with credits. I am actually selfish and want it to fall out so I can buy it for $1.5.. how mean.

another interesting apple SS has not picked up is 1484 10th. I dont know the area well at all, but it was listed for almost 200 days, and its 5th price reduction to $1.495 from $1.869 (-20%), and 7% below where it sold in 2006.

http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/1484-10th-Ave-94122/home/633312

Posted by: Geo at March 21, 2009 9:52 AM

"1484 10th"

Now that is a lust-worthy place.

Posted by: diemos at March 21, 2009 10:17 AM

Diemos,

1484 looks interesting to me at least, and at $530/ft² it seems ok -- as i said, dont know the area.

maybe will take a ride over that way.

take care.

Posted by: Geo at March 21, 2009 10:28 AM

Thanks for the insights, Geo. We used to be friendly with Mary Toboni (listing agent for 25 Mercedes) when we lived out there. Nothing related to real estate (didn't even know she was a realtor for months) - we have the same breed of dog and knew her from gatherings at Ft Funston. Best of luck, and here's to hoping the house falls out of contract and you pick it up for $1.5 (still $300K more than "fair value" IMO, but who cares if you really like it ;)).

About 1484 10th I've been in that neighborhood - a block away! - literally hundreds of times (ironic - we had a dog walker that we used a bit in 03 and 04 right around there, and our dog enjoys "vacations" still today when we go skiing or to the East Coast). I'm not sure of the exact demarcations, but I always think of that area as "Golden Gate Heights". It's cool and funky in a way, with lots of fun places nearby on Irving and quick access to GG Park.

LOL that someone paid $1.6M for that place. BTW, the sale was 2005 (not 06). Digging around, it looks like a typical situation. Bought in 04 for $900K, then completely renovated (including extending the ground floor) and flipped to someone who overvalued the renovation and will now have to eat not only the loss from the underlying value decline, but also the loss from the fact that there are fewer people around who will overpay for turnkey properties. 7% below the 2005 price (at least) for around there shouldn't surprise anyone I'd think.

Posted by: LMRiM at March 21, 2009 10:31 AM

LMRiM:

yep, I am OK paying a bit of a premium for mercedes.

Thanks for the note on 1484, if I get my work done, will take a ride over there.

you don't own an english bulldog too, do you?


Posted by: Geo at March 21, 2009 11:36 AM

Re: 1484 10th is showing contingent after the lastest price drop and 200+ dom...

Posted by: Geo at April 4, 2009 8:34 AM

Should be interesting to see where 1484 10th closes, Geo. If it closes anywhere near to the last ask (7% below 2005 price), I'd think the seller should feel pretty good. 2005 was very late in the ponzi scheme (although obviously things got even crazier the following year) and getting out with only a $200Kish loss (after agent commission, transaction costs on the way in and way out, and transfer taxes) really isn't too bad.

Did u ever go see the house?

PS - No, no bulldog for us (I'd love to have one, though).

Posted by: LMRiM at April 4, 2009 10:19 AM

1484 10th...I did not get a chance to get over there unforunately. My guess is it closes near the ask (-5% to 10%) -- it seems like a good price for a house in that shape.

Posted by: Geo at April 4, 2009 10:36 AM

Looks like another apple, 1470 Noe St, sold. It sold for $1,865,000 on 01/19/2007 and just closed for $1,850,000. So what that, about 1% down during two years of the biggest real estate bust in history?

According to DBI they built a retaining wall, so not quite a perfect "apple" but pretty darn close.

You can bet this one will never be on the front door of Socketsite, because it does not fit into the editor's agenda.

[Editor’s Note: To be honest, we simply missed the closing but we will feature it next week. Now back to our evil "agenda" (which is a lot easier to rationalize than the market is simply headed down)…]

Posted by: NoeValleyJim at April 4, 2009 1:04 PM

Hi Socketsite Editor - Since 1470 Noe was featured as a soon-to-be apple, would you consider a follow up post? Also a note of interest that may well be worth mentioning- Noe has had 44 sales so far this year, the most of any neighborhood in the city by 21 sales. Not reporting on this actually seems odd in my opinion, since this site is following all things market related. We all know we are in a recession and volume/prices/expectations etc. are falling, so data like this is interesting to people like myself who are watching the market. I favor a balanced approach.

Posted by: Auden at April 4, 2009 1:24 PM

Agreed that the sale of 1470 Noe should merit its own followup post, but perhaps because it is very recent sale (it hasn't even been published yet in sfgate.com/homesales) we shouldn't be too quick to throw accusations of bias just yet.

As for the sale, congrats to the seller here. $1.85M is lower of course than its March 2005 sale price of $1.875M, which is certainly a stronger but not inconsistent performance (as it is just one data point) as that shown by the C-S upper tier index (which is back to early 2004 levels).

Assuming standard sorts of transaction costs, it looks like the seller only lost about $125Kish in capital loss (plus whatever the retaining wall noted by NVJ cost to install). All in all, not too bad considering a purchase of SF real estate in 2007 was an extrardinarily ill-advised investment move on an ex ante basis. It looks like there is still time for at least some people in NV to sell before the full force of the decline is absorbed (if they're inclined to look at their house as an investment - otherwise, just enjoy it as the use item it is ;)).

[Editor’s Note: See note to NoeValleyJim above.]

Posted by: LMRiM at April 4, 2009 1:44 PM

Cool. I am just "workin the refs" anyway, you know that right? ;-)

Posted by: NoeValleyJim at April 4, 2009 2:05 PM

OMG, so Noe is still on fire! Just like my realtor told me!

So a place sold for just a little less than its 2005 sales price 4 years ago in a neighborhood that everyone seems to agree has appreciated more than just about anywhere in the last few years, and that now indicates market strength! 519 Valley is another that did the same ($680,000 on 3/13/09 and $715,000 on 2/18/05). Here's another "apple": 695 Grand View Ave Apt 101 ($435,000 3/3/09, $552,000 1/17/07) and another: 142 Clipper ($700,000 2/19/09, $760,000 7/7/07) and another: 651 27th ($1,195,000 2/18/09, $1,500,000 9/24/07, $1,200,000 2/18/04).

Good times!

Posted by: anon at April 4, 2009 2:09 PM

"[Editor’s Note: To be honest, we simply missed the closing but we will feature it next week. Now back to our evil "agenda" (which is a lot easier to rationalize than the market is simply headed down)…] "

Evil? no. Leading, biased? THINK: sure.

Posted by: anonn at April 4, 2009 2:11 PM

For the sake of the sellers, let's just hope that this NV "apple" is able to get its 2005 price:

http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/414-27th-St-94131/home/1302641/sfarmls-352786

Purchased for $1,550,000 in April 2007, 414 27th is now 50 DOM and asking $1,425,000. So, it's already down just over 8% from its 2007 price, and the sellers are looking at a more than $200K capital loss in less than 2 years. I'm pretty sure that an "apple" showing less than 2005 prices won't be too comforting for these sellers. 414 27th sold in 2005 for $1,285,000, and so if it only goes back to that level, that's well over $300K "thrown away on non-rent".

Posted by: LMRiM at April 4, 2009 2:23 PM

anon @april 4, 2:09 PM.

"OMG, so Noe is still on fire! Just like my realtor told me!"

I, for one, would give most people who read this site credit for being able to interpret data independently and understand these data points for what they are. Pointing these data points out should not be offensive to you.

Posted by: auden at April 4, 2009 5:30 PM

Some of these guys could care less about that, Auden. The true objectives for those such as meananon are being negative, bashing the market and attempting to virtual maim realtors.

Posted by: anonn at April 4, 2009 5:50 PM

1484 10th is BOM, having apparently fallen out of contract. Still listed at $1.495M, last sold 3/05 for $1.6M.

Posted by: LMRiM at April 9, 2009 7:52 PM

1484 10th -- I just noticed this one...ouch. tough goings on there for some reason.

Posted by: Geo at April 11, 2009 1:37 PM

1484 10th-- now for rent $5500/mo...

Posted by: Geo at April 17, 2009 10:59 AM

That's sad about 1484 10th, Geo. These guys started too high, imagining they'd get a return on their "investment" and chased the market down.

Prop shark shows they've got $340K in the first loss position as a downpayment. Probably isn't even enough equity in the place now to get a refi (w/o writing another check), which is the only way they could staunch the bleeding with a $5500/mo rent. Which they won't be able to get out in that spot anyway, no matter how nice the place is.

I've been urging people for as long as this bubble was obvious (at least since 2003) to continually get their cash out and/or never commit your own money to a bubble asset (First law of bubble: always use 100% other people's money. Corollary: the fact that you can use 100% OPM demonstrates irrefutably that you are in a bubble.) I still have that same (unsolicited) advice: don't get your good cash mixed up in this folly. The no money down days are gone (except for the FHA crowd), but the bubble prices still remain, only unwinding slowly and with great gnashing of teeth.

These guys need to make peace with the fact that the money is gone and cut to whatever the market will bear.

Posted by: LMRiM at April 17, 2009 11:25 AM

I like the inner sunset and the neighborhood around 1484 10th. Block away from the "N" is nice. My wife grew up a few blocks away (she hated the fog, but I wouldn't mind it). But this just is not a $1.5M neighborhood, even if some places may have reached those levels in the bubble years. The redfin page for this listing is interesting. Look at the recent "similar solds" column at the bottom -- $411/sf. Then look at the "similar listings" column -- $605/sf. Pretty easy to figure out what you need to do to sell this place.

Posted by: Trip at April 17, 2009 11:34 AM

1484: well now I know why it is still sitting there...tough floor plan with these smallish bedrooms in a maze of stairs and doors. They never thought to take down a key wall or two to make a livable space -- for example they have two rooms in the basement, when it could have been one larger media room.

the kitchen is well done if you like the dark wood look.

the bathrooms are generic plain.

It also has a concrete square for a yard.

it does have some very nice points, like great views from the roof deck, and nice hardwood floors. so there is something to work with if you like edwardian and want to make it a nice home, it can be done, but it will cost you another 100k or so..

Posted by: Geo at April 26, 2009 2:05 PM

Tough position for 1484 10th, Geo. Invest a bit more money to make it more sellable (and therefore risk even more resources), or simply accept the fact that the entire downpayment of $340K is likely gone and cut the price?

Up here in Tiburon/East Corte Madera, I am seeing a few people who tried unsuccessfully to get their properties sold at no loss to 2003/04 prices, and who are now seemingly renovating (work trucks parked outside). Maybe they're trying to spruce it up to try again, or maybe they've made peace with the fact that they are trapped and are making the place more livable.

Posted by: LMRiM at April 26, 2009 2:19 PM

Did you see 394 Frederick went contigent after 9 days? Had a pretty solid ask of $750/ft². Will be interested to see how that closes..

I also liked 177-179 Lower Terrace, it looks nice but, undfortunately, I can't see any parking.

Posted by: Geo at April 26, 2009 2:40 PM

Saw 159 Castenada today. Pretty home on a very nice street. Seems like a decent price for Forest Hill.

Posted by: 94114 at April 26, 2009 4:17 PM

I drove by 159 Castenada yesterday. Nice street - it seems a little nicer on the other side of Pacheco, however. Still, I agree that seems like a decent price for Forest Hill for that size place.

Posted by: LMRiM at April 26, 2009 4:23 PM

159 Castenada is in escrow.

Posted by: 94114 at May 1, 2009 7:58 AM

2491 40th Ave looks to be an '06 to '09 -5% apple

Posted by: anonn at May 1, 2009 10:11 AM

LMRiM, What do you think 2209 9th Avenue is worth in this market?

Posted by: 94114 at May 8, 2009 7:57 AM

94114 - I don't really have any feel for the 2209 9th house as far as fundamental value. It's a small house in an area of large houses, small lot in an area of large lots, a sort of "hip" place in an area where no one cares about hipness. I also can't find too much historical sales info on it, although the SS editor posted that it sold for $1.126 in 2005 and was then remodelled. So, who knows? That 2005 price (if accurate) seems pretty high - I'd expect prices out there on a randomly selected house to be about 20-25% below peak, but because this house doesn't seem to fit what most people out there are looking for, this one should do worse.

As for "market value" today? I'm sure the lower bound is $729.5K+3.5%. The FHA crowd would snap that up there in a second b/c (1) it's not their money at risk, and (2) there's not enough fear out there to wash out the perception that SF real estate is going to be a "good investment" over the medium term (believe me, that fear will come, and that will be one of the signals of a bottoming process). Obviously $939K is too much as this one is just sitting for a looong time, and so that's the upper bound. Split the difference, and I'll throw out a guess it would sell pretty easily with another 10% cut to the mid-800s. What do you (or Geo) think? (It sometimes seems like we are just about the only posters who are interested in D4 properties out there.)

Posted by: LMRiM at May 8, 2009 8:54 AM

Thanks for your analysis! I think mid 800's is probably close to what it's worth. Other than the challenges you listed (small hip house in a large family neighborhood), I don't think it's even 1200 square feet (probably closer to 1,000) and it was lovingly restored but definitely not remodeled. An older bathroom and kitchen that have been fluffed but not remodeled. Probably a good thing, considering how things are remodeled these days. The problem is the sellers probably owe way too much to settle for mid 800's.

Posted by: 94114 at May 8, 2009 9:03 AM

I think there something about the house next door being built after the last sale price @ 9th and killing the views, plus making this place look right a the neighbors wall. So the value has gone with that for sure.

I'm always up for the D4 talk as well, LMRiM.

Posted by: sparky-b at May 8, 2009 9:19 AM

@94114: 2209 is still way over priced, imho. look at what's traded and currently listed. decent stuff at $480/ft² to $500/ft², thus the "hip architect premium" is overdone. LM notes it is a tiny house there... I would thing $700k to $750 is a reasonable value for someone who wants to live there long term, but that is just me.

Posted by: Geo at May 8, 2009 9:51 AM

Geo: I like your pricing for buyers but if I were a seller, I wouldn't be too happy.

Posted by: 94114 at May 8, 2009 9:53 AM

Speaking of d4, here are a couple interesting ones:

We looked at this place as a rental a while back now listed. on a quiet street between two super highways..but a neat place that desperately needs a new kitchen and some work, but a good layout and nice deco feel..

http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/45-Broadmoor-Dr-94132/home/1615467

and this one just came on the market too...

http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/212-Santa-Paula-Ave-94127/home/699662

Posted by: Geo at May 8, 2009 9:59 AM

Broadmoor looks very cool. Would like to see some more pictures. The pricing on Santa Paula is unrealistic.

Posted by: 94114 at May 8, 2009 10:04 AM

Broadmoor is very nifty, but with TLC and elbow grease can be a very very nice place. Great wood throughout, and huge storage in the basement to work with and attached garage...I don't know much about the Lakeside area, as it seems a bit isolated. but it was a quiet street when we visited.

The pricing on Santa Paula is unrealistic

Sorry, I cannot comment on that one, as much as I would like to ;)

Posted by: Geo at May 8, 2009 10:09 AM

How interesting (your comment on Santa Paula)!

Posted by: 94114 at May 8, 2009 10:16 AM

Geo,

Lakeside is surprisingly quiet and nice, especially on the interior blocks. Winston gets very busy because it is the feeder street to Stonestown mall from St. Francis, Ingleside Terrace, Balboa Terrace, etc., but much of the commuter traffic turns south on Junipero to catch 280 before you get to Lakeside. The demographic is a mix of old time families (kids of original owners) and recently heavily skewed Asian.

Even the exterior streets are not terrible (except the ones that face 19th) because Junipero is cut off from the neighborhood by a sort of "access road" arrangement (look at the overhead map) with lots of trees around.

Lakeside is much foggier even than Monterey Heights.

$1.25M strikes me as a fairly pricey house for that part of the world (though Broadmoor is the nicest street).

Posted by: LMRiM at May 8, 2009 10:27 AM

45 Broadmoor: without a real feel for the neighborhood, I figured $1.0M is a decent starting point on the back of the envelope. Need to get a good estimate on the cost to bring it up to snuff.

Posted by: Geo at May 8, 2009 10:59 AM

"Lakeside is much foggier even than Monterey Heights."

I'd love to hear your analysis, LMRiM, of the different levels of fogginess in this part of town. Is Forest Hill less foggy than St. Francis Wood or is it the other way around?

Posted by: 94114 at May 8, 2009 11:07 AM

94114 - I really don't have a very good baseline "feel" for how comparatively foggy Forest Hill is because that's not one of the neighborhoods I ever spent a lot of "quality bike time" zipping around.

In general, as I’m sure you know, the top of Portola/Market (right near TP Boulevard & O’Shaugnessy) often seemed to be a dividing line between all day fog and part day fog, and going east from Monterey Heights (eastern side of Mt Davidson, starting right around North Gate and Monterey Blvd.) the nabes got progressively sunnier. It’s funny but I can’t tell you the number of times I started a bike ride totally in fog, went up into bright blue skies at the top of Twin Peaks, and returned in fog. Also, the Sunnyside nabe really is “sunny” compared with Monterey Heights/St. Francis on many days in July and August!

Posted by: LMRiM at May 8, 2009 12:52 PM

One thing I've noticed over the years is the tendency to deny that one's neighborhood is foggy.

Posted by: foggy at May 8, 2009 1:39 PM

Actually, I love the fog in St. Francis Wood, it is a truly a thing of beauty as it rolls in & out over the hills.

and LM is spot on, you hit Mollie Stone's and it is like entering another world.

Posted by: Geo at May 8, 2009 1:50 PM

Or as you leave the West Portal Muni station.

Posted by: 94114 at May 8, 2009 2:04 PM

2209 9th Avenue is in escrow.

Posted by: whatdoyouknow? at May 16, 2009 8:03 AM

Wow, I am happy that 2209 is finally in escrow! I thought they took it off the market again... Forest Hill is really a great place to live. I am a fellow neighbor of 2209 and "West Side Story". The problem here (in my opinion) was the design of the house itself. Although it is charming to say that Henry Hill is the architect- he wasn't the best architect at times, and it shows at 2209. This house is REALLY small. The buyer here would probably be looking at purchasing this house as a condo alternative, and it is a great one from that viewpoint. The "kitchen", if you will, is actually a kitchenette and is badly designed. 2209 has a carport only, and the bedrooms are small, with only one bathroom. The large firplace is oddly positioned, and creates wasted space behind it. None of the original single pane windows (to my knowledge) have been replaced, and there are many other architectural details which could have been improved upon, especially considering the small square footage. For the right person, this is a fine house. There is also some room for re-design and additional square footage. Let see what happens...

Posted by: sondy at July 27, 2009 12:52 AM

Sondy: I believe the escrow fell through on 2209 as the owner filed for Chapter 11.

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2009/06/a_well_designed_district_4_data_point_is_withdrawn_2209.html

Posted by: anon at July 27, 2009 5:39 AM

Speaking of a well designed data point -- 40 De Soto went contingent after 60 days -- listed for the same price as 2004... apple?

Posted by: Geo at December 3, 2009 8:53 AM

For the Forest Hill (Extension) watchers, it looks like 2266 9th Ave (6/4 4,816sq.ft.) will finally have its day on the courthouse steps on March 3. A final refi by WaMu (surprise!) in 2007 appears to be its undoing (auction est. ~$1.5million). I'm betting it goes the distance as they neglected the HOA fees this time around. Stay tuned...

Posted by: EBGuy at February 25, 2010 1:04 PM

"519 Valley is another that did the same ($680,000 on 3/13/09 and $715,000 on 2/18/05)."

Speaking of 519 Valley, it looks like it's pending after being last listed at $2.375M. The original list was at least $2.575M (January 2011 price), but I'm not sure what the original listing in October 2010 was.

The developers added two levels and a garage, a horizontal addition, two bathrooms, new plumbing, and new electrical.

It's not quite the "magic formula" for Noe that SanFronziScheme stated for SF, but it might not be that far off:

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2009/08/noe_valley_renovation_sells_for_a_penny_over_opening_bi.html

Maybe if we asked nicely, we could figure out what they might clear on this. :) Good work by the sellers here if it closes at close to current asking.

Posted by: sfrenegade at May 3, 2011 11:04 AM

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:

« Will The Twelfth Time Be The Charm? 830 El Camino Del Mar Returns | HOME | Bay Area Home Sales Slow, Except In San Francisco »