228 Mallorca Way: Kitchen
Down in the heart of the Marina in May 2000 a three-bedroom and two-bath condo at 228 Mallorca Way changed hands for $1,100,000. According to a plugged-in tipster, the owner then remodeled to the tune of around $200,000.
In May 2004 the upgraded condo with two parking spaces was sold for $1,225,000.
Returning to the market this January asking $1,395,000, the listing has been delisted, relisted, and reduced twice. Now asking $1,195,000. In the words of our tipster, is this the one “prime” condo the bull market forgot (or simply a nod to the new realty reality)?
∙ Listing: 228 Mallorca Way (3/2) – $1,195,000 [MLS]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by snark17

    Property declines in the middle of a severe recession. So interesting!

  2. Posted by anonn

    Meanwhile, a non apple SFR on Rico Way just sold for 1226 a foot, seemingly.

  3. Posted by anonm

    Oddly (or perhaps not), $1.195 million would put this prime property at an early-2004 price, which is exactly what the top-tier CSI posted yesterday would have predicted. Question is whether it will even go for the current list price. Presumably it has to go for more than $1.195 million, because CSI is for the entire SF MSA, and we all “know” that the “real SF” is holding up much better than even the top tier of the SF MSA, right?

  4. Posted by anonn

    But it sold for 30K more than that in early 2004? So, considering that, what do we “know” about the CSI’s ability to predict using the SF MSA? (Was that proper use of fake quotes? I’m still learning.)

  5. Posted by Jake

    So only 95k off from 2000 prices? Given the pricing history and a few of the pics, my guess is that this is a less than desirable space. It looks a little dark for one. Has anybody seen it?

  6. Posted by Stu

    The wine racks make me wonder where the giant wine gun is.

  7. Posted by Unwarrantedinlaw

    Worst economic crisis in our lifetimes and all we can find is an occasional property that’s down 20% from what everyone agrees was a bubble?

  8. Posted by Anon

    It hasn’t sold for $1.195 yet.
    BTW, “reduced” is so 2008. “Price improvement” is 2009.

  9. Posted by tipster

    Looking at the photos, it looks like a very standard Marina Flat in terms of light. The kitchen is slightly larger than most, though I suspect the dining room is probably smaller than most Marina flats. Most of the 2/2 flats are about 1550 square feet, so to add a third bedroom in 1700 is probably a little tight. The bedrooms don’t look particularly small, so I’m guessing they got some square footage out of the dining room.
    The street itself is quiet, and it’s in a fantastic location for the Marina, seismic hazards and all. The only problem is that the houses on that street have very small yards. I think a 3/2 with no real yard is probably a bit of a tough sell in the Marina.
    But shell space at the peak in 2005 was going for $650 psft, so I would think something in move in condition like this at $700 psft will be seen as a good deal. It’s informative that we are UNDER 2000 pricing now for something in very good shape.

  10. Posted by FormerAptBroker

    anonn wrote:
    > Meanwhile, a non apple SFR on Rico Way
    > just sold for 1226 a foot, seemingly.
    Do you have the address or any more details (since $1,200/sf was high even at the bubble top)?

  11. Posted by dogboy

    Worst economic crisis in our lifetimes and all we can find is an occasional property that’s down 20% from what everyone agrees was a bubble?
    The recession is not over and it’s effects will last long after it is. Expect a 30% – 40% percent decrease in spending for 10 years. Savings will go up dramatically.
    If somebody grabs this condo for list, they’ll be kicking themselves a year from now.

  12. Posted by UGH!

    “Worst economic crisis in our lifetimes and all we can find is an occasional property that’s down 20% from what everyone agrees was a bubble?”
    So is this the new standard response when apples are posted that show declines or zero appreciation?
    Surely the Real Estate Industrial Complex can come up with better than that stale response.
    I like “price improvement” myself, at least it is half honest.

  13. Posted by anonn

    27 Rico Way. I just looked it up and I think the tax record is probably accurate. The tax records show 1264 feet, and it sold for 1.55M. Look at the photos, it’s smallish.

  14. Posted by anonn

    It’s informative that we are UNDER 2000 pricing now for something in very good shape.
    Who are you trying to inform with that extrapolation? Yourself? “Informative”? Hardly. Not one single person in the market for condos in the Marina — and there are only 10 on the market, averaging 810 a foot –would come close to agreeing with you.

  15. Posted by LMRiM

    Price reductions (“improvements”, lol) on 228 Mallorca have been slow, which is typical when downpayments are involved. Property shark shows that $245K was put down in the first loss position back in 2004. Watching these sorts of listings for a while, it’s obvious that it takes time for people to make their peace with the idea that a good chunk (if not all) of a downpayment has been lost.
    One can imagine that behind these moldy 90+ “days on market” listings are Kubler-Ross processes wherein the sellers go through the seven stages of grief over their recently departed dollars. Additionally, I’d imagine that a seller needs to reckon with the idea that one paid more to own it than to rent it specifically because he believed it to be a “good investment”. Thus, not only must the dollar loss be confronted, but the acceptance of having been so wrong must also be achieved.

  16. Posted by gh

    This seems about right for a lower flat these days. That “third” bedroom is more like a small office for someone.

  17. Posted by tipster

    As I’ve explained before: realtors will never lie, but they will withhold facts.
    Lets look at 27 Rico way on a drive by from the street. What do you figure the chances are that it was sold for 1200 psft and not for the lot value as a teardown to build a $3M SFR. Look at the photo and decide. Apparently, we’re left to believe the Marina is “Hot, hot, hot” and 1200 psft is just the going rate.
    http://www.mapjack.com/?LfFnWfjxbFwC
    I just love the refreshing honesty of realtors. They never lie: their entire business model is predicated on withholding information.

  18. Posted by FormerAptBroker

    You have to admit that bringing up the price per foot of a single family home (that can be expanded or torn down) with a garage on a lot in a better area of the Marina when talking about the price per foot of a flat (that can not be expanded or torn down) in the Marina is a good idea when trying to sell the flat…

  19. Posted by ex SF-er

    tipster:
    although I agree with you that this purchase MAY be a prelude to a reno, it’s still quite telling that someone is going to risk their money to try to buy and then reno a property!

  20. Posted by (Sorta)NewBuyer

    @tipster
    1550 sqft is “standard” for a 2BR/2BA in the north part of the city? Seems a bit high to me.
    If you go to Soma, they are doing 2BR/2BA at just under 1000 in some of the buildings, and rarely do they exceed 1200-1300sqft for that.
    What square footage would you expect to see in a 2/2 before you consider it a ‘real’ 2/2?

  21. Posted by Conifer

    Most homes in the Marina cannot be torn down, and expanding the footprint is a major undertaking requiring an appearance, to fight “DR requesters”, before the Planning Commission, populated at the moment with no than three (uber-liberal) members who would never vote for it, and others who rarely do.
    Not that that justifies failing to provide true comps to a buyer.

  22. Posted by EBGuy

    I have abandoned using Trulia for neighborhood foreclosure data (and REO ratio) calculations as their data is at least a month out of date. The Marina was one of the last neighborhoods with NO foreclosures according to Trulia. I’ve switched to Yahoo!Realestate as you can drill down and get neighborhood foreclosures (NOD, NOTS and REOs) and homes for sale in one spot (beware, though, as their interface is absolutely abysmal). All this to say, the Marina has 3 NODs and 1 REO (all $1+ million). Not exactly capitulation numbers, but definitely a bit of “pent up supply” out there.

  23. Posted by Gen

    This property seems to be 3 unit condo. Since 2 unit condo is “standard Marina flat”, I think it maybe the reason why you can not command higher price per SQF.

  24. Posted by MarinaLocal

    As to 27 Rico, look at the Satellite view on google maps. Large lot (almost 2x at back than front) given the curved street, with house open on 3 sides. Considering it is a single family home, compare that to the others in the Marina all listed for more (i.e. those on Avila) on lesser streets. My guess, good reno opportunity

  25. Posted by tipster

    SNB,
    I was just trying to compare it to other marina flats in that hood to get an idea of whether there was anything wrong with it. To get a large living room and a formal dining room for 8 (which most of these flats have), you need 1500 minimum.
    Conifer, no one is paying 1200 psft in the marina to live in that same envelope. It may be hard to change it, but they didn’t pay that price to keep it the way it is. They probably intend to duplicate what’s next door. I suspect anonn knew full well that it wasn’t priced for its current square footage.

  26. Posted by MarinaLocal

    Forgot to mention the 27 Rico tax records do not include the downstairs ‘party room’ and bathroom, which add another 400sqft. If you redo the math including the extra 400sqft it is less than $1000/sqft.

  27. Posted by anonn

    “As I’ve explained before: realtors will never lie, but they will withhold facts.
    Lets look at 27 Rico way on a drive by from the street. What do you figure the chances are that it was sold for 1200 psft and not for the lot value as a teardown to build a $3M SFR. Look at the photo and decide. Apparently, we’re left to believe the Marina is “Hot, hot, hot” and 1200 psft is just the going rate.
    http://www.mapjack.com/?LfFnWfjxbFwC
    I just love the refreshing honesty of realtors. They never lie: their entire business model is predicated on withholding information.

    Are you freaking serious with that nonsense Tipster? “Lies” “hot hot hot” and “teardown” ???? You by far the most dishonest person on this website.
    And MarinaLocal,
    I did look at the lower party room. I looked it up too. There was no permit. But if you look at the space in question, it not only seems to have decent head height, but it looks to have decent light + air. Now, go back and look at the upper rooms. They all appear small. And why 400 feet? Do you know for sure? But OK. Go ahead and call it 400 feet. The property still sold for 931 a foot in that case.

  28. Posted by anonn

    You have to admit that bringing up the price per foot of a single family home (that can be expanded or torn down) with a garage on a lot in a better area of the Marina when talking about the price per foot of a flat (that can not be expanded or torn down) in the Marina is a good idea when trying to sell the flat…
    Huh? I brought Rico up purely because it’s two and a half smallish blocks away. Period. You’re amusing, man. Pretty out of the loop and trying to present yourself as some sort of fount of knowledge. “A better part of the Marina” huh? More like the same part. That’s about the sixth overstatement I’ve caught from you. Step it up. The people on here aren’t stupid.

  29. Posted by anonn

    I think everybody who reads this site should pony up 500 bucks so that Tipster and FormerAptBroker can buy a piece of crap house somewhere in the city. Let alone a perfectly nice house in the Marina. They can buy something decreptit in the Excelsior. Then we can follow their attempts to get a tear down permit. Make a blog of it. LOL at some of the stuff that gets said on here.

  30. Posted by gh

    Hate to say, but Rico is a better block of the Marina than Mallorca, and SFRs do have more expansion/development potential. Be careful Anonn, you might in fact be the stupid one here. Sorry buddy.

  31. Posted by anonn

    Of course SFRs have more expansion and development potential. I’ll concede that Rico is a better block too, barely. Gee. Sorry for bringing up a noteable sale two blocks away. My bad!
    Now how about that teardown? How about those year 2000 values? “Stupid”? I ? I think not.

  32. Posted by LMRiM

    LOL about all the banter about 27 Rico. So, on April 29, 2009, the realtors are touting a $1.55M sale for a modest (but clearly redone w/some upgrades over the years) Marina house on a nice street with oversize lot as a sign of great strength.
    It reminded me of another characterization by realtor “Prime” back on July 7, 2008 – not even 1 year ago – talking about this nabe:
    “I remember just 2 years ago, 1 story Marina bungalow homes were selling for under $2million. Price strength and profits are incredible.” (Posted by: Prime at July 7, 2008 7:34 PM)
    It looks like we’re well under $2M (at least).

  33. Posted by anonn

    “oversize lot as a sign of great strength.”
    No, you said that.
    Prime?
    Hardly.
    The property is very close by. The property indicates “year 2000 values” might not be all that fair of a thing to say.
    The end.
    “With great strength comes great responsibility” — Tipster.

  34. Posted by Paul Hwang

    Retiro Way is the best street in the Marina, simply for the name; “Yeah, I sold my company and moved to Retiro.”

  35. Posted by LMRiM

    Not to get too off topic, but speaking about “Year 2000″ prices in the Marina, this one has been sitting for a while (61 DOM) without a reduction:
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/3520-Baker-St-94123/home/1963819
    Listed for $3.5M, it was purchased for $3.35M back in early January 2001 (so, call it a “2000″ price). I bet that after hearing what a great investment SF real estate has been (especially the “good seats”), and having seen Chomicle cover after Chomicle cover touting the ever rising median prices for years (those were the days, lol), the sellers are probably shocked to discover that they can’t even cover the realtor commission without digging into their pockets. And it’s not sold yet, so the financial damage could be much worse. Anyway, a good learning experience – all of us speculators/gamblers have been there….

  36. Posted by anonn

    Bears, “Don’t talk about listed properties. It is sold data that counts.”
    o.
    wait.

  37. Posted by hangemhi

    “realtors will never lie, but they will withhold facts”
    you’re talking to/hiring the wrong realtor bud.
    all mechanics cheat you, until you find the one who doesn’t.
    all lawyers are crooks – well, that one is true.

  38. Posted by LMRiM

    That reminds me of what the one honest realtor I have encountered in my life once told me: “99% of realtors give the rest of us a bad name” ;)

  39. Posted by EBGuy

    Oh, this is too good to pass up. The nearest potential foreclosure unit is at 3730 Fillmore — a 2 bath unit coming in at 1722 sq.ft. A Notice of Trustee Sale was filed on Feb. 24, 2009 for the amount of $1,047,818. The auction is scheduled for June 9. And I almost forgot, the owner, one Brennan J Newsom, (3rd cousin, or something like that, to Mayor Gavin Newsom). Thank you RealtyTrac, Zillow, and SF Recorders Office for that gem!

  40. Posted by MarinaLocal

    Anonn-
    Yes, I know for a fact it is roughly 400 sqft. Did you walk through the property or are you making your assumptions based on the photos? They are nice size rooms, larger than the typical 2/2 Marina flat. I know that because I live in a typical 2/2 Marina flat. Since this property was brought up in comparison to Mallorca flat, I would definitely agree this was a much better buy. A real SFH (even zoned RH 1), a very quiet street vs Mallorca which is a thru street,huge reno possiblities, and 3 walls detached to boot! I also think whoever bought Rico got a steal, compared to the $3M Avila house and the other Avila houses that sold in the mid $2Ms. I would think that $1.55 has to be close to 2000 pricing.

  41. Posted by EBGuy

    I should note, the property owned by Brennan J Newsom at 3730 Fillmore avoided the auction block last year (NOTS filed in May 2008).

  42. Posted by anonn

    I would think that $1.55 has to be close to 2000 pricing.
    You’re entitled to your opinion. But again, even if you count all of the lower rooms’ roughly 400 feet as fully counting sq ft it’s going to work out to 931 a foot.

  43. Posted by anonn

    That reminds me of what the one honest realtor I have encountered in my life once told me: “99% of realtors give the rest of us a bad name” ;)
    That reminds me of the of the one retired millionaire former hedge fund trader who spends all of his time researching a real estate market of a city he does not live in, where he has no intention of ever purchasing. Huh. Come to think of it I have never met such a person.

  44. Posted by LMRiM

    LOL, anonn. We run in pretty rarified circles, and tend not to mix with the peasants.

  45. Posted by viewlover

    You have to admit that bringing up the price per foot of a single family home (that can be expanded or torn down) with a garage on a lot in a better area of the Marina when talking about the price per foot of a flat (that can not be expanded or torn down) in the Marina is a good idea when trying to sell the flat…
    Is anonn the realtor? Otherwise, this is just another out-of-context grasp by the Tipster, who won’t own up to being wrong on his dumb car analogy, and FAB, who throws all sorts of arguments with no context other than feable attempts at sounding like he knows rich people, yet doesn’t know anything about quite sales. Bunch of bitter phonies…just saying, and with that you can continue to ignore me.

  46. Posted by EBGuy

    It also appears that 3730 Fillmore had a complaint filed late last year about:
    Storage in back of unit being converted into illegal unit. Electrical wiring without permit.

  47. Posted by houseseeker

    I checked 228 Mallorca Way out. It’s done up well. No yard is a drawback, but that’s probably more than priced in here. Oversized bedrooms, and a walk in closet works. Nice overhead lighting and moldings throughout and good storage. And the third bedroom is not just an office nook – you could easily stick a full size bed and chest of drawers in there. Location is pretty sweet too if you are OK with liquefaction, 1.5 blks from the main drag on Chestnut St.

  48. Posted by FormerAptBroker

    LMRiM wrote:
    > Listed for $3.5M, it was purchased for $3.35M back
    > in early January 2001 (so, call it a “2000″ price).
    Then anonn wrote:
    >Bears, “Don’t talk about listed properties.
    > It is sold data that counts.”
    Bears can use list prices to show a market is soft, but Bulls can’t use list prices to use a market is strong (If a Bear points out that there are 25 “Princess Dianna” Beanie Babies on Craig’s List from 25 different sellers all asking $1 it tells you that the market is at $1 or lower. If a Bull points out that there are two “Princess Dianna” Beanie Babies on eBay and they both have a $100 minimum bid it only tells you that there are two sellers who believe in miracles)…

  49. Posted by FormerAptBroker

    viewlover wrote:
    > FAB, who throws all sorts of arguments with
    > no context other than feable attempts at sounding
    > like he knows rich people, yet doesn’t know
    > anything about quite sales.
    I think viewlover was trying to say that I was making a “feeble” attempt at sounding like I know rich people and that I know nothing about “quiet” sales.
    I have mentioned in the past that my parents (who never went to college) ended up buying a big house on the Peninsula in the late 60’s after my grandfather (who had a stroke) came to live with us (and they had extra money from his pension and the rental of his house in SF). When I was a kid (in public school) most homes in our neighborhood were selling for under $200K. Now that most of my friends parents live in homes worth $3-5mm (and many have cabins in Tahoe that cost $50K and are now worth ~$1mm) I guess you can call all the people I grew up around “rich”. I have no idea why it is hard to believe that some Bay Area property is “listed for sale” but not “in the MLS” (and showing up on total property for sale reports) since the sellers want to keep the sales quiet (or as viewlover would say “quite”)…

  50. Posted by sunnyvalesteve

    Regarding the top photo, is that JiffyPop on the kitchen counter??

  51. Posted by viewlover

    actually, I’m saying that you don’t make any sense. I was on with tipster stating that I did not buy his conspiracy theory about realtors being able to withhold inventory in order to drive prices up. NOthing in those posts, mine or tipsters made any statement about none mls lisings being sold. His point again, in case you still don’t get it, was that agents discourage listings in order to reduce inventory in order to raise prices, a rediculous statement in my opinion. I’ve since gone on to explain the logic behind it. You stuck your nose in it with some comment about quite sales and some snobby church going person who stated that basically only trash gets listed on the MLS. And about how there are distressed properties in Atherton or wherever the hell you grew up. What the hell does that have to do with what I was stating? Other than you derailing the topic and trying to appear to make a point. I never said that some listings don’t go on the MLS, I know for a fact that some don’t, without getting to complicated, look at infinity, hello! Still you keep suggesting that I don’t believe that some listings never make the MLS by putting words into my mouth.
    Since then I’ve noticed you make no sense other than try to sound smart.
    For example: Bears can use list prices to show a market is soft, but Bulls can’t use list prices to use a market is strong (If a Bear points out that there are 25 “Princess Dianna” Beanie Babies on Craig’s List from 25 different sellers all asking $1 it tells you that the market is at $1 or lower. If a Bull points out that there are two “Princess Dianna” Beanie Babies on eBay and they both have a $100 minimum bid it only tells you that there are two sellers who believe in miracles)…
    All this tells you is that listing prices don’t mean anything, basically mirroring anonn, but trying to be original. Nice try. What if someone bought or sold a beenie diana for $200. What if the 25 people on craigslist are selling fakes or false advertising. Find someone who has paid a dollar or more than $100 and it begins to mean something. Otherwise it’s just an empty comment, and then you throw in what LMIMr stated followed by what anonn stated and there is no connection. Sort of like your census from 1970 pointless point and the rest of that post. Then you argue every individual point, but still, you say nothing, you’re not making any conceptual argument, just a bunch of sentences and paragraphs that don’t say a damned thing. So don’t think about what I’m trying to say, just read it, over and over if you have to, maybe I’ll begin to make sense to you.

  52. Posted by lolcat_94123

    If this was a top unit with deeded roof I’d be tempted to think about possibly snagging it. Maybe. ;)

  53. Posted by 2legit

    1.195 for turnkey 1700 sf in this area? i bet its in contract soon

  54. Posted by EBGuy

    The nearest potential foreclosure unit is at 3730 Fillmore — a 2 bath unit coming in at 1722 sq.ft. A Notice of Trustee Sale was filed on Feb. 24, 2009 for the amount of $1,047,818. The auction is scheduled for June 9. And I almost forgot, the owner, one Brennan J Newsom, (3rd cousin, or something like that, to Mayor Gavin Newsom).
    Last week, I was going to write a retraction and say it looked like this default was cured (as had been done in the past). But as they say, you can run, but you can’t hide. Its foreclosure Tuesday and Sfgate indicates 3070 Fillmore was taken back by the bank for $1,099,079 on June 23. Is there a genealogist in the house that can set the record straight on the owner’s relationship to the mayor?

  55. Posted by EBGuy

    3070 Fillmore
    Should read 3730 Fillmore. Bought for $500k in 1999.

  56. Posted by patricia

    He is the ex mayors first cousin

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *