June 9, 2009
Price "Slashing!" In Pacific Heights (And Return To A Near 2000 Value)
Purchased for $5,000,000 in July 2000, 2775 Green returned to the market this past February asking $5,950,000. A sale at which would have represented average annual appreciation of 2% over the past nine years.
A week ago, however, the list price was "slashed!" (their words, not ours) by $700,000. A sale at the reduced asking of $5,250,000 would represent average annual appreciation of 0.6% over the past nine years for this prime Pacific Heights "French Renaissance" home.
We trust no truly plugged-in person will confuse a 2009 sale price at a near 2000 purchase price as values have effectively been holding steady since 2000 or 2001.
UPDATE: While the year 2000 sale at $5,000,000 stands, a plugged-in sleepiguy is correct about another sale with an undisclosed price in June 2004 (and some subsequent "fixing") that we missed. Cheers.
∙ Listing: 2775 Green (5/4.5) 4,892 sqft - $5,250,000 [2775green.com] [MLS]
∙ $15000 / 5br - Dramatic!Fully Renovated 5brm; 3.5 ba; Fabulous Grdn & Dks [Craigslist]
First Published: June 9, 2009 9:30 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
"French Renaissance"... as in "French dressing" which is nowhere to be bound in France.
Posted by: flaneur at June 9, 2009 9:48 AM
those double garage doors are awful. without the ornate railings and gate that building would look like a crappy box from the richmond. in fact, if you didn't say that it was in pacific heights, that's what I would have guessed. blah!
Posted by: blah at June 9, 2009 9:56 AM
About 4900 square feet on a great block in superb shape. Great scale. One would expect it to sell at or near this price. Are we really going to hit 2000 pricing this quickly? Some of us have been predicting pricing in the late 90s but not nearly this soon.
2601 Lyon street doesn't appear to have sold, and I think it was asking more and about 1000 square feet less.
Posted by: tipster at June 9, 2009 9:59 AM
Inside and out it looks just like a Four Seasons Hotel.
According to Property Shark, $3.5 million in loans means current owners placed $1.5 million in "first loss position."
Again according to Prop. Shark, it sold for $1.5 million in 1998.
Posted by: Rubicon at June 9, 2009 10:02 AM
Love the staircase, love the floor finishes. What kind of wood is this?
I don't agree 100% with flaneur, there's a bit of Paris there. The dining room looks very much like the Haussmannian dining room in my pied-a-terre in Paris except ceilings are lower and the moldings don't have much volume to them.
But Renaissance? If you understand Renaissance as "rebirth", then it is a Renaissance of Haussmann's own Renaissance of the actual French Renaissance style which was a copy of the Italian Rinascimento which was itself a rediscovery of ancient architecture.
This bastard style has gone through many many tumble cycles before being grafted to this PH house. It works pretty well for the location I think.
Posted by: San FronziScheme at June 9, 2009 10:07 AM
What was that about SF real estate being an "inflation hedge"?
According to the Fed's own CPI calculator, the inflation adjusted price today would be $6,341,463 (it doesn't calculate any finer than 2000 -> 2009).
BTW, there are a ton of permits on this place. It looks like it had dry rot problems, and it looks like a good deal of work was done to the back of the house subsequent to the 2000 purchase. Also seems to have had some interior work done, including removing a bearing wall to open up the kitchen (which, judging from that ugly kitchen and columns, may not have been the best idea imo!).
Posted by: LMRiM at June 9, 2009 10:13 AM
Isn't the accepted term for this sort of concoctions "French provincial"? But the two garage doors, the sash windows, the overhang of the mansard roof and the giant dormer are as American as French dressing.
Posted by: flaneur at June 9, 2009 10:16 AM
Why buy when you can rent! Only 15k. See name link.
Posted by: eddy at June 9, 2009 10:21 AM
barfalicious. the worst part is the attempt to do a more modern "open" kitchen with a classical/vegas motif. would have been much better as a separate space or modernized altogether.
hideous, truly hideous.
Posted by: anonnn at June 9, 2009 10:25 AM
so it went from 1.5M in 1998 to 5.0M in 2000? what kind of absurd appreciation is that.
Posted by: condoshopper at June 9, 2009 10:31 AM
$15K/mo rent? Absolutely amazing. (And they probably won't get that.)
Taxes alone on this place are $64K+ per year. I don't even want to try to think about the cap rate on this place.
It's amazing how $1.5M trapped in the first loss position will influence people to make foolish financial choices with their asset.
BTW, after a few reasonable assumptions about the cost of the work done over the years, commissions and likely selling price, it's hard to see how this purchase won't result in a double digit negative cash on cash return over 9 years. No way to avoid a negative return, but perhaps if it sells here it would only be single digit negative CAGR. Not really surprising, the late arrivers to bubbles get fleeced.
Posted by: LMRiM at June 9, 2009 10:38 AM
Again according to Prop. Shark, it sold for $1.5 million in 1998.
That is insane! is it correct? was it bought and totally redone prior to the 2000 sale? I can't believe a $1.5M 1998 sale and then a $5M 2000 sale are apples to apples.
Not really surprising, the late arrivers to bubbles get fleeced.
these people may have been late arrivals to the dot com bubble, but they were in early for the credit bubble.
as for the house:
I think the front exterior passes well enough as a French Renaissance home (but not the back exterior). And I also think that their pseudo-parterre garden is quite French. I see it all the time while in Paris.
I'd have a hard time calling the interior French.
That said, it's clean and crisp, and it's done. Great floors, great mouldings, etc Also in a great nabe. (yes, kitchen and bathrooms could use some work for this pricepoint).
Overall I like this house a lot, and would be very happy living here. not sure if it wows me as a $5M home "should", but that's because I have a hard time overcoming SF RE pricing.
somewhat surprising that this is going for near its 2000 price this early in the game IMO. (I've said many times that I fully expect much of SF RE to revert to 2000 in real terms). perhaps it is a realistic seller, or one who is under some pressure, or one trying to get a bidding war (but I doubt we'll see many bidding wars in this price range due to economic factors).
Posted by: ex SF-er at June 9, 2009 10:50 AM
Still priced at over $1000 psf, as it was in 2000. Was it typical in 2000 for PH homes to go for over $1000 psf? Something seems a little off about this, especially considering the $1.5m 1998 price.
Posted by: sanfrantim at June 9, 2009 10:51 AM
Something seems a little off about this, especially considering the $1.5m 1998 price.
The permits I can see show a large expansion remodel subsequent to 1998 but prior to its 2000 sale (permit lists $385K cost, so you know it was much more!).
Still, expansion/renovation won't explain all the increase. 1997-2000 saw extraordinary appreciation in many of the glamour nabes, presumably as newly-minted dot-commers competed to overpay for assets in limited supply, from what I can tell (not having been here at the time). The market is now in the process of unwinding those overpayments.
Look for pre-2000 pricing to be the norm by next year in this segment imo (apples to apples, of course).
Posted by: LMRiM at June 9, 2009 10:59 AM
In the East Bay, we're seeing a dramatic decline in the values of high-end properties.
Not necessarily through the listing prices (because most sellers still haven't come to grips with reality), but by looking at the selling prices of the few expensive homes that actually do sell.
It isn't unrealistic to say that East Bay high-end homes are back to their 2000 levels.
Posted by: REOgreg at June 9, 2009 11:06 AM
Do the regualr floggers (you know who you are) really have to comment on every posting?
The sky is falling commentary is getting old, however when you're discussing a high end property it's even more ridiculous than on the other properties as you have about as much authority to comment on $5 million dollar home as I do on who's in the running for this years Nobel Prize in Applied Mathematics.
Like watching Don Rickles perform, it's just tired.
Posted by: Jimmy C at June 9, 2009 11:13 AM
We spend a lot of time in Paris, and have been in many dozens of Haussmannian apartments over the years, from the modest to the very grandest.
This is not French.
Nice enough house, though, and ready to move in. Is it worth the price? I would want a little more "real SF" antiquity, and a view, but others would not care.
Posted by: Conifer at June 9, 2009 11:18 AM
For this house to go to pre-2000 prices means, if these numbers are correct, a $1.5m price, which seems absurd.
For this house to be "reduced" to a mere $5.2m doesn't seem like much of a fire sale.
Posted by: Unwarrantedinlaw at June 9, 2009 11:19 AM
this Don Rickles bashing is completely uncalled for.
Posted by: Stu at June 9, 2009 11:26 AM
There should be Nobel Prizes for fabricating Nobel Prizes (applied mathematics?) and misapplying architectural styles (this is French Renaissance?). We've just found this year's laureates.
Posted by: FAA at June 9, 2009 11:28 AM
Jimmy C. wrote:
> The sky is falling commentary is getting old, however
> when you're discussing a high end property it's even
> more ridiculous than on the other properties as you have
> about as much authority to comment on $5 million dollar
> home as I do on who's in the running for this years Nobel
> Prize in Applied Mathematics.
What would qualify someone to comment on “high end” properties (maybe a Realtor ®, with a CRS ®, ABR ®, GRI ® and the new NAR “Green” ® designations)?
Posted by: FormerAptBroker at June 9, 2009 11:34 AM
who's in the running for this years Nobel Prize in Applied Mathematics
There is no such thing as a Nobel Prize in Mathematics (Applied or not). Your comment sounded smart enough though with all the bear bashing and all.
Posted by: San FronziScheme at June 9, 2009 11:36 AM
A lot of the info here is wrong.. and there's too much speculation. Allow to me add some more confusion. The most recent sale of this house was in 2003, not 2000. I don't know the sale price, but it was sold as "remodeled." LMRIM is right, btw- the 2000s remodel was so shoddy that the house essentially rotted. The current owners unaware of the dry rot during the sale fixed the place to the best of their ability. So this isn't a clean apple by any means. That said, it's still not a great looking house inside, which is a huge part of why it remains unsold. There are some really awkward rooms and some major design flaws. Anyway, there's no reason this shouldn't sell at the current asking price. (And can I add how much I hate the exterior color? It used to be a lovely, rustic gray, and now it's baby poo yellow)
[Editor's Note: While the year 2000 sale at $5,000,000 stands, sleepiguy is correct about another sale with an undisclosed price that we missed (although it was in June of 2004).]
Posted by: sleepiguy at June 9, 2009 11:43 AM
I had french toast for breakfast and this house is definitely not French.
Posted by: Pepe at June 9, 2009 12:30 PM
How could a 2004 sale be undisclosed ? Hasn't the ink dried on the paperwork in the recorder's office long ago ?
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at June 9, 2009 12:32 PM
I actually won the nobel prize for applied mathematics®...
I invented it, applied for it and won it... just the same way the NAR invents designations and titles like CRS ®, ABR ®, GRI ® and "Green" and "awards" them to its members.
Sorry about the Rickles comment Stu... I meant to slag Barry Manilow.
Posted by: Jimmy C at June 9, 2009 12:37 PM
Real estate is such a slow and inefficient market. We are definitely going back to 1998 pricing, although it will be slow and painful for both buyers and sellers. Here is my market call rationale:
The French don't call it "French toast." they call it lost bread. And French Fries are actually Belgian. And Don Rickles doesn't have much of a following in Belgium. But Jerry Lewis is allegedly big in France and he did the first worldwide telecast in 1998. Thus, you can bank on a return to 1.5mm for this property.
Posted by: fries at June 9, 2009 12:45 PM
Yeah, but check out the sweet new car the neighbors are getting!
Posted by: Joe Blo at June 9, 2009 12:46 PM
Garrett, one of my favorites for his transparency, has posted the May sales figures for SFRs. I don't see much of a spring bounce -- more like a continued spring bust. The '09 numbers look an awful lot like the '04 numbers in terms of median and average, but the sales volume is way down and DOM is way up. Apropros of this thread, it does look like D7 is taking the biggest hit in terms of price -- sales volume has been surprisingly consistent YOY, but inventory has gone way up (hence, lower prices). Maybe June will be the turnaround we've been hearing about . . .
Posted by: Trip at June 9, 2009 12:56 PM
This house has an unmistakable SoCal exterior appearance. The Google street view shows just how cheap the metalwork and painted ornamental pots out front look close up.
Posted by: derrysf at June 9, 2009 12:58 PM
sleepiguy is correct about another sale with an undisclosed price that we missed (although it was in June of 2004)
That clears up what looked like an anomaly on the assessed valuation for tax purposes. The current valuation is $5,532,712. If the sale was in June 04, it's likely that there were 4 full billing cycles since then, implying that the 2004 sale was ~$5.1M (discounting back at the prop 13 2% CAGR).
So, the 2000 buyer likely lost some reasonable money after commission and maintenance/dry rot expense, and so will the 2004 buyer. The sorts of results you'd expect I guess.
Posted by: LMRiM at June 9, 2009 12:59 PM
Apologies -- I see tipster already cross-posted the sales numbers from Garrett's site on another thread.
Posted by: Trip at June 9, 2009 12:59 PM
I can't believe there is anyone who doesn't love Don Rickles. o_0
Posted by: kthnxybe at June 9, 2009 1:42 PM
A couple of things to note about this place. Firstly, the fixtures and fittings are, err, customised would be the polite way to put it. You might need to rip out rather a lot if your tastes are not exactly those of the current owners. Secondly, while that end of Green is generally fairly easy for parking this place is across the street from the Russian Consulate, who have some rather invasive security arrangements including blocking off all parking for half the block of the other side of the street.
Posted by: Nick at June 9, 2009 1:53 PM
This place should appeal to the Iranian Businessman contingent -- big, tasteless and overpriced. That's just their style, we're told. The Maserati on Google Street View is a nice touch -- does that come with the house?
Posted by: Jimmy (No Longer Bitter) at June 9, 2009 2:05 PM
it's not a Maserati, it's an Aston Martin
I know because I own 2 or 3 (of each)
Posted by: asiagoSF at June 9, 2009 2:37 PM
Posted by: eddy at June 9, 2009 2:43 PM
Definely a 2008 Maserati GranTurismo.
Posted by: San FronziScheme at June 9, 2009 2:44 PM
Enough with the Iran bashing. C'mon, you kids know better than to play nasty.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at June 9, 2009 2:47 PM
by bad, it is a Maserati
I got confused because that's a model I don't have (yet)
Posted by: asiagoSF at June 9, 2009 2:56 PM
Honest mistake. The taillight is a dead give-away, but so is the emblem;)
Posted by: San FronziScheme at June 9, 2009 3:01 PM
Jimmy (No Longer Bitter (But Perhaps Still Racist?)) seems to have some serious xenophobic impulses.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of anyone else at SS called out even once for racially suspect comments much less twice like our friend Jimmy.
Posted by: nnona at June 9, 2009 3:35 PM
13.8% of all families are estimated to make 200k and above according to the latest numbers from the Census Bureau (parsing at 300k is not available).
Posted by: anonn at June 9, 2009 4:29 PM
I wouldn't worry about my xenophobic impulses; if I were an Iranian national (I dated one briefly in 2001, full disclosure. She was nice.), I'd personally be more worried about what the Pentagon thinks about Iran's nuclear ambitions and their meddling in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Who was it on here who derided LA as "Tehrangeles"?
Not I, I can assure you.
Posted by: Jimmy (No Longer Bitter) at June 9, 2009 4:39 PM
this was a 1952-built box when purchased for shy of $1.5 in '98. Even if we assume they spent $2 million to totally re-build (garage and entry door are in the same place... windows totally changed in front) the flipper made a friggin killing off what was probably a newly minted dot-com kazillionaire with more money than sense
to pay $5 million for what looked french, and was vintage 1999 flipper store bought charm, is lunacy. But at the height of the dot com days, when everyone was rich, and knew they would only be getting richer, people paid ridiculous amounts to beat out the competition - absolutely no care at all about future price appreciation.
so when picking apples the editor could do us all a favor and skip over year 2000 apples. Imagine saying - oh darn the Nasdaq returned to 2000 levels (or the DOW or S&P for that matter). Gee what a crying shame that would be.
that unforunate purchase price caused new buyers to have to pay the high price or pass on the home completely... and they weren't passing on anything in '04. today.... this might only sell for $4 million.
Posted by: hangemhi at June 9, 2009 4:56 PM
To be fair, the criticism Jimmy levels at Iranians is more ironic than racist.
oversized, tasteless and overpriced....
isnt that how American taste is perceived by many others overseas - with, it might be said, some justification...!
No doubt the style would have been called "Freedom Renaissance" circa 2003....
Posted by: REpornaddict at June 9, 2009 4:59 PM
There should indeed be some way to state that varying cultures value different styles, finishes, embellishments, without being racist or xenophobic.
I am Irish, have done business in Asia, Africa, and in the Middle East, and it would be ridiculous to deny that there are radically different standards and tastes in what constitutes elegance and beauty in a home and its décor.
Posted by: derrysf at June 9, 2009 5:09 PM
I think that nnona just has it in for me because I pointed out in an earlier thread that Asian culture places a premium on land ownership due to a history of exploitation of landless peasants by landowners.
His statements, like most statements on this BBS, are baseless and without merit.
Posted by: Jimmy (No Longer Bitter) at June 9, 2009 5:19 PM
June 9 4:29 p.m. was not yours truly
Posted by: anonn at June 9, 2009 5:26 PM
the flipper made a friggin killing off what was probably a newly minted dot-com kazillionaire with more money than sense
I can't argue with that, hangemhi. It seems that both in 2000 and in 2004 there were many buyers with more money than sense, and this property snared two of them. I actually think you could fairly make the statement that the pool of SF buyers as a whole had more money than sense.
Now, the market is continuing the economics lesson, and by the time it's over people will have a lot less money, but (presumably) at least a bit more sense. A good tradeoff imo.
Posted by: LMRiM at June 9, 2009 5:52 PM
What an odd thing for someone to have donned an anonn disguise (or any disguise, really) to post.
Posted by: Shza at June 9, 2009 5:53 PM
Regarding the percentage of SF with income over $200K, that 13.8% number only applies to family households. 9.8% of total households in SF had income over $200K (2007 inflation adjusted dollars). Note that these numbers are from the American Community Survey 2005-2007 estimates.
Posted by: anon at June 9, 2009 6:04 PM
This place should appeal to the Iranian Businessman contingent -- big, tasteless and overpriced. That's just their style, we're told.
It's that no one with architecture credentials has bothered to coin and promulgate a name for the style that people derisively refer to as "Persian Palaces", so that the style that everyone knows by that name can be detached from a particular ethnic group and hence provide the opportunity to avoid ethnic stereotypes.
I remembered reading an article about this in the L.A. Times and I was wondering if that was where I get this idea in my head. Not quite, but it comes close:
With no established architectural style to describe them, houses such as the ones Omrani builds are derisively known in Beverly Hills as "Persian Palaces" because they are particularly popular among the Iranian-born families who make up an estimated 6,000 or more of the city's 34,000 residents (and nearly all of Omrani's clientele). It's a stereotype, to be sure, but Omrani embraces the term with enthusiastic pride.
Now, check out the photos. I don't think that 2775 Green qualifies.
[Editor's Note: We could be wrong, but we actually think the sardonic "Iranian" comment was simply in reference to 2157 Green.]
Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at June 9, 2009 6:48 PM
The iranian comment is more funny than anything else. If it seems racist then you don't know many iranians from so-cal, as for the politics. I don't think any iranian nationals cares what the pentagon thinks unless they start paying much higher salaries. And now back to over priced real estate.
Posted by: asad at June 9, 2009 8:09 PM
I wonder had this house sold in it's normal pricing in 2000, what would it be? $2.5M maybe? Or $3M? If that is the case, then perhaps the true 2000 price for this house is really more like $3M (if that is the normal pricing and not a flipped price). And assuming $3M should be the accurate price for this house in 2000, $5.25M would represent still substantially high price. Therefore, I would not call this house is going back to the 2000 pricing since this house was overpriced in 2000 to beginning with.
Posted by: jaja at June 9, 2009 9:32 PM
Re. Persian Palaces: Thank God for the SF Planning Commission.
Posted by: Jimmy (No Longer Bitter) at June 9, 2009 9:59 PM
I don't think any of the "Iranian" comments were racist. As when people globally refer to anything "American", It's not racist... so we need to be consistent.
Plus in LA (specifically Glendale and a few other areas), the exact same thing is refered to as AA, or Armenian Architecture and nobody calls that racist. But in LA people are less likely to be so politically correct.
Plus the good news is that the NAR is adding a "Persian Expert" designation that their members can now purchase and tout that they are "experts" in all architecture which may or may not be purchased or rented by anyone who's distant ancestors may have emerged from the fertile crecent or any of the surronding areas. Realtors®... get out your checkbooks.
Posted by: Jimmy C at June 10, 2009 10:26 AM
One more thing. "Iranian" isn't a race. Iranians, along with all middle-eastern nationalities, north Africans, Europeans and white Americans are all "Caucasian." One day, some of the posters here should look on a map and find the "Caucasus" region actually is in the world (hint: its closer to Tehran than to London).
We may now resume freely disparaging Iranians, secure in the knowledge that they are, in fact, white people too.
Posted by: Jimmy (No Longer Bitter) at June 10, 2009 11:32 AM
> I would not call this house is going back to the 2000 pricing
> since this house was overpriced in 2000 to beginning with.
I will be impressed if Realtors ® are able to convince people that every home selling for less than they sold for years age were just “overpriced”…
Posted by: FormerAptBroker at June 10, 2009 11:39 AM
OK. Here's a suggestion. Keep some notes on every single transaction, and whether or not Realtors use that language and sales pitch, and then get back to us on whether or not you were impressed.
Posted by: anonn at June 10, 2009 11:49 AM
^Isn't that what we're doing here?
Posted by: eddy at June 10, 2009 11:52 AM
With respect to "every" ? Nope. But sorry Eddy, you're not necessarily part of the Royal We Crew in my book.
Posted by: anonn at June 10, 2009 11:57 AM
:) Just making light of it all.
Posted by: eddy at June 10, 2009 1:53 PM
Eddy... don't worry, there is a private club on the posting boards that is much smarter than everyone and does not include you as part of their "We". (note sarcastic tone)
But it's good to know they now have a book to track who is in the "we" and who is a peasant. Maybe they can get with the NAR and create a designation for it.
Posted by: Jimmy C at June 10, 2009 3:21 PM
Oh, you mean We®
Posted by: San FronziScheme at June 10, 2009 3:46 PM
The rear garden is nice but this is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a five million dollar house.
Posted by: Salarywoman at June 10, 2009 4:35 PM
"One more thing. "Iranian" isn't a race. Iranians, along with all middle-eastern nationalities, north Africans, Europeans and white Americans are all "Caucasian." .... We may now resume freely disparaging Iranians, secure in the knowledge that they are, in fact, white people too."
Do Iranians, along with "all middle-eastern nationalities,(and) north Africans" "feel secure in the knowledge that they are, in fact, white people too" whilst being profiled and searched at the airport, for example?
Jews are "white people, too". Can we "resume freely disparaging" them as well?
"One day, some of the posters here should look on a map and find the "Caucasus" region actually is in the world (hint: its closer to Tehran than to London)."
One day, some of the posters here should look on a map (and open a history book) and find how many countries, peoples, cultures, and religions comprise "Asia" before making blanket statements like..... "Asian culture places a premium on land ownership due to a history of exploitation of landless peasants by landowners" ........ or ......"real estate mania is definitely more common with older FOB asians." ......... or "Asian people REALLY believe in real estate & no price is too high to get it, apprently." (hint: Asia is a lot bigger than rural China).
It is interesting that you get so literal (thanks, Wiki) about the term "Caucasian" (defining it in a way that you know full well is not used by the overwhelming majority of people in the US), while you don't use the same intellectual rigor about the term "Asian".
Posted by: nnona at June 10, 2009 7:59 PM
See everyone? nnona has a vendetta against me. Feel free to ignore him.
Posted by: Jimmy (No Longer Bitter) at June 10, 2009 8:40 PM
Jimmy, why don't you actually address my questions instead of claiming some delusional vendetta?
Posted by: nnona at June 10, 2009 9:08 PM
OK: 'Jewish' is not a race. Its a religion. Iranian is not a race, its a nationality. You accust me of being racist, but its not true. Take it back and we can all be friends again.
Posted by: Jimmy (No Longer Bitter) at June 11, 2009 8:28 AM
The list price for 2775 Green Street has just been reduced to $4,950,000. Once again, sold for $5,000,000 in July 2000 and again for an undisclosed price in June 2004 following some "fixing."
Posted by: SocketSite at June 19, 2009 11:30 AM
Interesting. Nina also just listed 2626 Green down the street at $4.5 (last sold in 95 for $1.4!) so I'm sure that might have influenced the owners here. Only a single (somewhat misrepresenting) photo on MLS at this time for 2626. No photoshoping like the baker street situation, but certainly a favorable angle!
Posted by: eddy at June 19, 2009 2:51 PM
2626 should sell quickly. I'm curious what the inside looks like though. I kind of feel bad for the owners of 2775... I'm wondering if the disclosure about the dry rot damage is scaring people off especially when uglier houses in worse areas are selling for more. There's no reason this shouldn't sell for 5.
Posted by: sleepiguy at June 19, 2009 4:11 PM
2626 Green is in contract already. What is wrong with 2775? Clearly there are buyers out there at and above this range, yet this place just sits?
I've always felt that a "view" is worth anywhere between 300-500 per square foot. 2626 has some premium views and is $200 psf higher than 2775. I'll be looking at this sale to reset my "view premium". I really don't see this home going for less than $4.5 and I'll predict $4.7M. Situations like this always seem like an opportune time to make a low ball offer when the owner is demoralized. I think this place will be en escrow before the end of the July.
Posted by: eddy at June 29, 2009 11:54 AM
2775 is off the market. Maybe they found a renter. This house feels like the one with the deer in as much as I think $5M is their floor.
Posted by: eddy at August 11, 2009 8:48 AM
Posted by: eddy at August 11, 2009 4:29 PM
Finally in escrow but not yet "firm," will it stick?
Posted by: SocketSite at October 1, 2009 1:28 PM
This should be interesting.
Posted by: eddy at October 1, 2009 2:54 PM
Posted by: eddy at October 5, 2009 3:46 PM
Sold. Appears confidential @ $4.95 being the last MLS list price. I think we can safely assume that is was not over asking.
Posted by: eddy at October 26, 2009 2:58 PM
Wow, confidential sale this was. It sold for $4.4M, not the $4.95M/confidential reported on MLS:
Oct 26, 2009 Sold (Public Records) $4,400,000 -1.4%/yr Public Records
Oct 23, 2009 Sold (MLS) $4,950,000 -- Inactive San Francisco MLS #353029
That's 12% below its $5M sale in 2000. Not sure what the undisclosed sale price in 2004, referred to above, was.
Posted by: sfrenegade at January 19, 2010 4:13 PM
Oh no! This thread lives! A 15% (ish) drop here isn't that bad... I was expecting worse... Much, much worse. Now that some of the numbers are coming out from last year, there are similar "apple-esque" properties with steeper drops in D7. The newly remodeled homes have done surprisingly well though!
Posted by: sleepiguy at January 19, 2010 4:27 PM
Not to be nitpicky, sleepiguy, but you said above:
"Anyway, there's no reason this shouldn't sell at the current asking price."
"There's no reason this shouldn't sell for 5."
That was at $5.25M, it seems. With inflation, this was a bigger drop -- that 2000 sale would be an inflation-adjusted $6.23M.
Btw, looks like 2626 Green sold for $4.35M after Ms. Hatvany's listing at $4.5M.
Posted by: anon at January 19, 2010 4:39 PM
For a moment, I thought that I was the only one concerned by the so-called “confidential” sales prices. We don’t know to what extent this Deception has taken. Only the MLS for professionals were privy that the “confidential prices“were actually the last Asking Prices. Redfin and others clearly published the “Confidential Prices or Asking Prices” as SOLD Prices to the public. They now are citing MLS.
This can be considered as Intentional Misrepresentation to the Public and those that purchsed thinking their properties were worth more based upon published sales prices (comps) may have grievance.
Posted by: SL123 at January 19, 2010 4:39 PM
Lol.. Yes, I reread my own words before posting that.. and yes, I have to eat them. Tasty! I should've said, when it actually sold, I really feared the worst when the the final numbers came out. I honestly believed this would sell closer to 5 than it did... But all non-remodeled D7 apples are selling at 15 to 20% losses from their post 2000 purchase price. And yes, the theoretical loss would've been greater than just 15%.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of many 2009 D7 SFHs that are true apples where the sellers posted a gain following a post, say, 2000 purchase. Were there any?
Posted by: sleepiguy at January 19, 2010 4:58 PM