Carl Terrace (415-437 Carl)
It was almost two years ago that a reader first wondered about the renovation of twelve units up at 415 Carl. And it was about six months later that they first hit the market.
Asking $489,000 in January of 2008, the list price for 415 Carl has been reduced to $399,000 while the list price for 437 Carl has been reduced to $499,000 (from $529,000).
Of the six TICs and six condos within Carl Terrace, ten remain unsold (including all six of the TICs). And the seller is now offering five year financing (interest only at 5.5% with a balloon payment) with 15% down.
Moving Pictures: Can You Help A Reader (And Us) Out? [SocketSite]
Two Of The TICs At 415 (And 437) Carl Hit The Market In Cole Valley [SocketSite]
Carl Terrace []

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by resp

    i’ll refrain from making another comment about TIC’s being dead meat in this market environment. draw your own conclusion.
    btw if u didn’t notice, our favorite TIC in the real SF (Fillmore in the Marina) has been cut to $499K, approaching the “auction/sham” market price of $410K.

  2. Posted by Jimmy (No Longer Bitter)

    Interesting. It looks as though the seller is in some kind of distress. I particularly like the exploding 5.5% ARM seller financing (presumably an attempt to move the TICs).

  3. Posted by resp

    oh and the 3 unit TIC on Clayton that started the “deadmeat” argument last week has been pulled from the MLS as separate units. the seller appears to be only marketing the full building.

  4. Posted by Jeffrey W. Baker

    All the TIC I asked about were offering some form of seller financing. Only a moron would finance those in this market.

  5. Posted by Jeffrey W. Baker

    For example this TIC on S. Van Ness has been on the market for more than a year now, is offering seller financing and/or carryback, and has also been marketed as full building with bottom floor commercial use. Desperation.

  6. Posted by anonn

    Thirty two TICs have sold since 4/19 (Including one on Albion between 16th and 17th for over a million!!? wow), and another 98 are in contract. While that’s not a whole heck of a lot, it is not zilch either. So again, what’s “dead meat” to you?

  7. Posted by anonn

    For example this TIC on S. Van Ness has been on the market for more than a year now, is offering seller financing and/or carryback, and has also been marketed as full building with bottom floor commercial use. Desperation.
    Have you seen those units? I have. I don’t think you understand the issues at hand with those units. It is not price.

  8. Posted by chuckie

    Sales 40-50% down y-o-y is dead meat. Anything worse is double-dead meat.

  9. Posted by Jeffrey W. Baker

    Do tell, anonn. I assume you’re talking about the units themselves and not just the shady ‘hood.

  10. Posted by anonn

    Oh man. I am very happy to report that I absolutely did not click on your wikipedia citing for “double dead meat.”

  11. Posted by anonn

    Whoever developed those units chose to not put a new concrete foundation in, or deal with the basement properly in any way. When we viewed it there was standing water, and the space had its own sump pump. I have no sympathy, as that was an egregious corner to cut. I could have sold one of those units very easily, but I had to advise my client to pass. It sticks out like a sore thumb because the units are otherwise excellent, and very large.

  12. Posted by chguy

    I saw these units (on Carl) a few weeks ago with a friend. Nicer on the outside than on the inside. Small rooms, oddly angled hallways, cheap finishes. RE agent seemed snippy and exasperated; no wonder why…

  13. Posted by EBGuy

    So again, what’s “dead meat” to you?
    We haven’t heard from paco in about three months. The abandoned project at 1626 Waller. The prevalence of “seller financing”…

  14. Posted by chuckie

    paco is busy buying up good seats…uh …he’s gonna be rich!

  15. Posted by wanker

    These would make good rental stock.

  16. Posted by Unwarrantedinlaw

    A “dead meat” environment is like when the Mongols invaded Persia and built mountains of skulls. Dead meat is not when we find a property here and there that sells for 10 – 20% less than its extreme bubble peak.

  17. Posted by viewlover

    anonn, thanks for that update. I saw the link and was wondering why these would not sell. Amazing that they did not do the foundation right, but in this town it does not surprise me.

  18. Posted by Chad

    Chuckie sounds like a “meat head” to me…
    I mean seriously readers, TICs have made a good sized place (2 BR + 1 or more Bath) affordable in this crazy SF market, probably why there has been so much sales since April like Anonn put it nicely.
    Why call TICs names like “dead meat” ? Aren’t most of you readers too broke to even buy a 2 BR Condo in SF ??
    [Editor’s Note: If by “too broke” you mean an average household income of over $200,000, then yes.]

  19. Posted by sanfrantim

    SS, isn’t it time for a new biennial reader survey?

  20. Posted by classified

    Seller is in no financial trouble. Owns the property free and clear. Will certainly make great rentals for the UC community.

  21. Posted by resp

    you’re right Chad, they’re certainly not dead meat from a buyers perspective.
    i did a quick run of the TIC numbers off the MLS last week at which time it appeared there was about 42 weeks of supply of TICs in San Francisco using the selling rate provided by anonn.
    Anonn you now say that 32 have sold in the past month – that’s 8/week. I count 255 currently listed that are not “active contingent”. That’s about 32 weeks of supply. Let’s say half of those listed “active contingent” sell and the other half fall out. That’ll be 255+33 =288 units or 36 weeks of supply now. But wait. What about the TIC units like Clayton that are no longer listed as TIC’s but as entire buildings, artificially lowering the apparent number for sale??
    u get what I’m saying? It’s a much better time to be a buyer than a seller of TICs with roughly 36 weeks of supply. prices will continue down in this category of housing at a greater than average rate.

  22. Posted by chuckie

    I didn’t call TIC’s dead meat. I don’t know if they are or if they’re not. I just said that if the sales y-o-y are down 40-50%, that would be dead meat. The absolute numbers provided by anonn don’t really mean very much. What matters is if the sales are up or down…and how much.

  23. Posted by Adam

    These are the farthest thing from a distress sale, which is why they’ve been sitting so long. The seller is completely unmotivated and not very realistic.

  24. Posted by 45yo hipster

    i think tic sales are certainly suffering from a year ago, but it’s too early to tell if there will be any massive bargains. there are a few distressed tic developers who have multiple, similiar units in bldg’s over 6 units (the hardest to move, as they will not condo convert.) offsetting the few distressed tic developers, is the fact that hardly anyone now is tackling new tic developments. hence, as the market ebbs and flows this year, the supply/demand dynamics for tic’s may work it’s way without any spectacular discounts.
    this has not been the case with the larger, institutional soma condo towers developers, where many decided to knock 20% +/- to move units. i’m pretty sure they are all still making money, but unlike 04-07 where their IRR was quite spectacular, they are probably scraping by with a much more modest return.

  25. Posted by SocketSite

    415 Carl closed escrow on 6/1/09 with a reported contract price of $400,000. That’s officially over asking according to industry stats(by $1,000/0.2%), but $89,000/18.2% under its original ask of $489,000 in January of 2008.

  26. Posted by SocketSite

    The sale of 417 Carl (1/1) closed escrow on 7/1/09 with a reported contract price of $439,000 (last asking $449,000).

  27. Posted by SocketSite

    The sale of 421 Carl (2/2) closed escrow on 7/29/09 with a reported contract price of $725,000 (last asking $769,000).

  28. Posted by SocketSite

    The sale of 429 Carl (2/2) closed escrow on 8/28/09 with a reported contract price of $755,000 (last asking $799,000).

Add a Comment

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