April 30, 2009
I’ll See Your $800 Per Square Foot And
Raise Lower You $200 At 235
Purchased for $1,052,500 in February 2007, 235 Berry #416 returned to the market 34 days ago and is asking $1,295,000 ($804/sqft). Purchased for $757,000 in February 2007, 235 Berry #317 returned to the market 14 days ago and is asking $838,000 ($783/sqft).
And as a plugged-in tipster notes, yesterday 235 Berry #413 aggressively joined the two three five resale fray. Purchased for $950,000 in June of 2007 (which at $18,900 under what the developer was asking might have seemed like a good negotiation at the time), the two-bedroom condo has returned to the market asking $789,000 ($639/sqft).
First Published: April 30, 2009 9:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
I think the photo is representative of the build quality of these condos overall. The numbers aren't quite straight, or in line. The fasteners are barely attached to some questionable anchors, none of them are at quite the same angle, and they are all bound to fall off eventually.
Posted by: Jeffrey W. Baker at April 30, 2009 10:00 AM
I'm becoming a student of my psychology
am I so frail?
I remember thinking a few years back, when they were $1mil.plus, that if I could just get into a newer 1200 sq. ft. 2/2 in SOMA/Mission Bay/South Beach for only $800k I would love it.
Now we're there and I'm thinking it's overpriced but I would jump at $600k. But I bet if it got there I would again reconsider.
It's hard to grapple with the value question. It makes you really asses what you personally want.
Posted by: Rubicon at April 30, 2009 10:00 AM
A bit a pent up supply in the area: eight units in some state of foreclosure. Note they are all located between the Caltrain tracks and highway 80 (read: not on Berry).
Posted by: EBGuy at April 30, 2009 10:48 AM
Haha JWB, that's a really good point! I didn't even notice until you mentioned it.
Posted by: Sb at April 30, 2009 11:01 AM
I would jump at $600k. But I bet if it got there I would again reconsider.
We may already be there. I have a friend who lives there. He told me nothing is moving in this building. Price kept being lowered (slowly) and no one is biting. Sellers are hanging on to fantasy prices and all it takes is one seller to have a religious moment and let it go at $600k-ish.
Posted by: pobeb at April 30, 2009 12:27 PM
'We may already be there...all it takes is one seller to have a religious moment and let it go at $600k-ish.'
This is going to sound rude and I dont mean it to - but that is wonderfully naive. You presuppose the sellers have that much capital in the property. Almost none will - sure there 'may' be a few that are all cash, but then they could easily rent it and would not need to sell in what is arguably the worst RE market for sellers since '89.
It would not be a seller that makes that 'come to Jesus' moment. It would be a bank allowing a short sale or putting on a real estate owned property at that price. Highly unlikely being as that is not where the comps are at even in this 25% down market for soma.
I would wager this unit will be in contract before two weeks are out at that price, but time will tell...
Posted by: response to pobeb at April 30, 2009 12:47 PM
This is going to sound rude and I dont mean it to - but that is wonderfully naive.
Maybe I was naive. But holy cow are you rude. Take your meds, count to three, and relax. Alright? It's just a discussion.
It's not easy renting out in today's market. My friend has been trying for a couple of months. For his sake I hope you're right because if he still can't rent out he'll sell.
Posted by: pobeb at April 30, 2009 1:51 PM
There's a 2/2 REO's in SOMA for 600K currently, so if a unit turns REO here, I don't see why it couldn't go for 600K. Unless for whatever reason this building/neighborhood is selling at a premium to such buildings as 199 New Montgomery, 246 2nd St, 555 4th St, Beacon, etc.
Posted by: condoshopper at April 30, 2009 1:54 PM
the problem with renting it out is that you could only rent it out for half your mortgage costs. you can rent 2bd 2ba in the vicinity for $2500-3000/mo
Posted by: spencer at April 30, 2009 2:03 PM
condoshopper, that's a good pt. If there are existing $600k 2/2, then it can only hurt existing 2/2 that are asking near $800k; reo or not.
I find the idea that sellers can't afford to sell at $600k therefore prices will never get there, entirely illogical. The market is not driven by sellers. That doesn't mean sellers won't fight for their asking price, however.
spencer, another good pt. It's tough for the sellers to just sit there and absorb thousands dollars loss every month because rent can't cover the mortgage. Taking the condo off the market and rent it out is only an option for people who has large down payments or deep pockets, imo.
Posted by: pobeb at April 30, 2009 2:15 PM
This 2/2 is not even REO (according to MLS), looks clean, and solid building in central area (199 NM), for 609K:
Posted by: condoshopper at April 30, 2009 3:38 PM
This 199 NM unit doesn't seem to have parking... $340 per month for leased parking.
Posted by: chuckie at April 30, 2009 4:11 PM
The unit at 199 NM has some issues like facing a dark courtyard, older building, no amenities but is priced decent for $609k. The killer is the lease parking fee.
If it includes parking for $600k, I'd say it'll go. A good comp for this unit is BLU (The units facing the office building next door) but I prefer the Montgomery location better. I was considering buying one of the cheaper Blu units but decided that Folsom and 2nd was way too crowded with cars. I don't mind facing a wall as long as nobody can look into my unit.
Posted by: anon at April 30, 2009 4:27 PM
maybe it can be had for 5%-10% below asking, in which case the cost savings could pay for many months and years of parking. in this economy, i have to believe that one can get leased parking from a local garage for less than $340/mth.
Posted by: condoshopper at April 30, 2009 7:46 PM
I've been waiting to buy a condo on Berry street. Either 235 or it's older twin 255 Berry. I'm waiting for a water view unit though. I have a friend with a unit that faces the water and views are great and unit quiet and peaceful.
I just wonder what's the price difference for a unit facing Berry St vs a unit with views of the water and S Mission Bay? As an investment, how much premium should one pay for a waterfront unit?
Posted by: berry res at April 30, 2009 11:02 PM
I looked at that 235 when the developer released it back in 2007 - they were asking around 10 to 15% premium for units facing water (compared to facing Berry).
Posted by: ucsf at May 1, 2009 1:51 PM
As of yesterday there are five units for resale in the building. All the "pent up demand" seems to be on the sell side....
Posted by: local at May 4, 2009 7:52 AM
The list price for 235 Berry #317 has been reduced to $749,000. Once again, purchased for $757,000 in February 2007.
Posted by: SocketSite at May 29, 2009 4:04 PM
The list price for 235 Berry #416 has been reduced $100,000 to $1,195,000. Once again, purchased for $1,052,500 in February 2007.
Posted by: SocketSite at June 16, 2009 8:57 AM
The list price for 235 Berry #413 has been reduced 5% to $749,000. Once again, purchased for $950,000 in June of 2007.
Posted by: SocketSite at August 31, 2009 12:34 PM
The listing for 235 Berry #317 has been withdrawn from the MLS without a sale at $749,000, purchased for $757,000 in February 2007.
Posted by: SocketSite at September 24, 2009 6:15 AM
These places are a tough sell. There are absolutely no amenities at all. Just a square box, most with no view. They are pretty inside, but for $60K you could really make any small apartment just as nice. What you can't do is add amenities.
The constant roar of caltrain trains is pervasive. The soot and pollution from being 100 feet away from the end of the 280 freeway and 150 feet from ten idling diesel trains makes it tough to even open a window.
If enough people got option arms for these, they can just rent them out for about what their costs are for the next 2 years to hope for better pricing, and then dump them back to the bank. This building and its 255 twin will likely start having real problems when that time comes.
Posted by: tipster at September 24, 2009 7:52 AM