114 Crescent Avenue
From the listing (verbatim) for 114 Crescent Avenue:

50K pride redution. This is a beatiful house. It was just too much money before we reduced the price!

Now asking $875,000 for the the single-family home on the southern side of Bernal Heights. Purchased for $960,000 in July of 2005 (8.8% under its reduced ask). And no sale after 30 days on the market at $925,000.
114 Crescent Avenue: Kitchen
We’re assuming the renovation was prior to the last purchase, and as such it would likely have been more expensive on a per square foot basis than any neighborhood average including a mix of unrenovated homes in 2005. But apples to apples it works.
∙ Listing: 114 Crescent Avenue (3/2) – $875,000 [MLS]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Gary

    Anyone else get a chuckle out of “pride reduction”?

  2. Posted by tipster

    This must be a condo, then, because I heard from a Realtor on this site that SFHs are still strong and being down 10% from 2005 is only an issue if you have a condo!
    Perhaps the previous owner overpaid?

  3. Posted by EBGuy

    The original mortgage was $768k variable. There was either a refi or second with Chase in Feb. 2007. I regret that I have but one downpayment to give my country.

  4. Posted by sfrenegade

    Duh, tipster, it’s because it’s on the *south* side of Bernal and not the north.
    And obviously the owner overpaid in 2005. Why else would there be a loss now?

  5. Posted by mac

    SFHs in SF are back to 2004 prices on average. Condos seems worse, back at 2000-1 prices in some cases. True? False? Too facile a statement?

  6. Posted by Rillion

    Do you guys have your comments programmed into a macro or do you just copy/paste them?

  7. Posted by Other Lurker

    I like the painting in the living room. Too bad it probably belongs to the stager. Kitchen is pretty nice, but would prefer a hood over the stove. Nice deck outside. Nice floors. Cute house. Whether or not the price is right, I’m sure someone will enjoy this place.

  8. Posted by diemos

    I stick with steam-of-consciousness.
    So, Rillion, give us a report from the front lines. Are you getting itchy feet yet?

  9. Posted by steve

    mac, try offering 00/04 prices for a condo/SFH you’d actually want to live in for the nex 10 or 15 years and let us know how it goes. I suspect you won’t have much luck.

  10. Posted by anonn

    You call 8.8% different than anything I, for one, have ever said? I’ve been saying 5 to 10 percent down at most for SFRS for over year now. That’s within any and all areas any of you samecommentbots would ever actually want to live. If you ever bought a thing. Which you won’t.

  11. Posted by shanaynay

    Less than 1200 SF according to the assessor, a high price per square foot at least… wonder if they did some unpermitted rooms down work on this one to get “3 bedrooms”.

  12. Posted by tipster

    Um, Anonn, this one is down 10% from 2005, not 10% from the peak. Prices continued to rise well beyond 2005.

  13. Posted by Trip

    The subject of this thread is an SFR at 2004 prices, and I would live there. Here is another place that is getting very close to the 2001 selling price that I would not mind living in for the next 10 or 15 years:
    Here are a couple more that are getting there:
    The market is not standardized or transparent enough to make a blanket statement like “we’re at 2001 or 2004 prices.” But we’re generally closer to prevailing prices during that time period than prevailing prices in 2006-2007. The key point is we’re still heading backwards, and we will be for quite a bit longer.

  14. Posted by anonn

    Um, Anonn, this one is down 10% from 2005, not 10% from the peak. Prices continued to rise well beyond 2005.
    And you, in turn, are supposing that they did not pay a peak price regardless of the year. What, was it one magic three month period in 2007 when every single property went for peak? 960K for a 1200 foot house on South Slope Bernal will look a whole lot like “peak” to anybody who isn’t a disinformation hobbyist, such as yourself.
    [Removed by Editor]
    Jeez. Bad day for a bunch of you.
    [Editor’s Note: With that we’ll agree, but we’re going to keep the deductibility debate contained on the 1440 Kearny thread.]

  15. Posted by steve

    The key point is we’re still heading backwards, and we will be for quite a bit longer
    Is any there evidence of that? Again, SF isn’t where I have been looking most but the local minima in Palo Alto / Menlo Park came late winter. For SF, the recent news seem positive for prices (declining inventory, rising sales, and some homes that have surprised on the upside — South Park, Ev’s new Noe Pad and even Kearny).

  16. Posted by mac

    I know that bldg well. 701 just sold (seller lost a lot there) 1101 just sold as a short sale, and now 1601 is up for sale for under 10% more than 2001 prices.
    The big issue in this bldg probably is the high HOAs ..24hr Security costs a lot.

  17. Posted by Rillion

    Diemos – Front lines? Itchy feet?
    Didn’t realize there was a war going on. I’m not going anywhere, I have a secure job (rare in the financial industry these days) and I can afford my home payments (which are about what the average rent is from the rental survey in the other thread). Just because I think you guys are a broken record doesn’t mean I think you are wrong, just that I think you guys post pretty much the same thing on every thread.
    Do you dispute that snarky/mocking expressions such as:
    “Perhaps the previous owner overpaid?”
    “because it’s on the *south* side of Bernal and not the north.”
    are commonplace on Socketsite and are repeated pretty much every time another data point showing a decline is posted?

  18. Posted by whatFlujAndOthersSaid

    Rillion — do you dispute that people make the reverse comments here, e.g.
    Sure. People thought that future gains were likel in 2007. People who bid 16% over though? They needed to take that overbid into account. We were not experiencing double digit appreciation in 2007. Further, when you get down to it, I would suggest that this particular series of events resembles what happens when you do not heed an old, old adage. That is, “Don’t buy the best house on the block unless you plan to stay for a while.” That is an ancient real estate CW, and in light of it, it renders this sale somewhat predictable. I think they had the list price right. I think they overpaid by a substantial margin. I think that if they actually were to stick around for 10 years like somebody who makes such a purchase should do, they would probably actually see a gain.
    Posted by: anonn at April 13, 2009 3:34 PM
    1) “Prime” Bernal is north slope with downtown views, the rest works back from there.
    Posted by: sparky-c at March 17, 2009 4:03 PM
    Blanket statements about Bernal Heights reflect a lack of understanding of this neighborhood. The North Slope is very different from Faith Street on the back side. Higher elevations with city & bay views, and those within easy/safe walking distance of Cortland Street are also very different than streets abutting freeways, etc. Houses on the north slope seem to be selling at/above asking prices at levels that reflect a stabilization of pricing, but certainly nothing close to the draconian declines some people here have contended by looking at MLS listings without regard to the property particulars and specific locale.
    Posted by: bernalboy at September 18, 2009 8:51 PM
    These sorts of excuses for why property values have fallen are given on SS all the time.

  19. Posted by sanfrantim

    Nice. This looks like good value to me.

  20. Posted by EBGuy

    … Or if you’d like the property that bookends St. Mary’s Park on the east end, you can show up at the courthouse steps on November 4. The home at 200 Crescent Avenue (1260 sq.ft., 2/1) appears to have been in the family a while. Perhaps they went to the well one too many times, as the bank wants it back with an unpaid balance of $189,654.

  21. Posted by EBGuy

    I know that bldg well. 701 just sold (seller lost a lot there) 1101 just sold as a short sale, and now 1601 is up for sale for under 10% more than 2001 prices.
    FWIW, since we are talking about 1835 Franklin, Unit 801 received a NOTS on July, 3. Also seems to be having some trouble paying those high HOAs. Appears to be a long time owner…

  22. Posted by Mr. E.

    Anonn & Sfrenegade: Hug it out, brahs. Just hug it out.
    Re: the topic at hand – I find the argument that there is unwarranted work here compelling, and the location is a little sucky. And one would have to add an exhaust hood.
    I deem it: overpriced!

  23. Posted by anonn

    These sorts of excuses for why property values have fallen are given on SS all the time.
    But every one of those statements is a fact.
    Your new “smoking gun” hobby/persona needs more than a little fine tuning, whatflujAndOthersSaid. You keep going back and providing sensible quotes as if they are somehow damning. LOL.

  24. Posted by 94114

    Obviously, whatFlujAndOthersSaid has a lot of free time on his hands.

  25. Posted by FormerAptBroker

    anonn wrote:
    > I’ve been saying 5 to 10 percent down at most for
    > SFRS for over year now. That’s within any and all
    > areas any of you samecommentbots would ever
    > actually want to live.
    Not long ago I posted that 200 Manzanita in Woodside that sold for $13.8mm back in 2000 just sold for $8mm (after trying to get more than they paid and following the market down for three years).
    After looking at the photos below I bet we can find at least one person who would want “actually” to live at this place (even if prices are still dropping and a home on the block is a GSB “mini dorm”)…
    P.S. For anyone that wants to build in Woodside the asking price of the lot at 205 Whiskey Hill is down to $4.5mm from over $9.0mm less than a year ago.
    P.P.S. I want everyone to know that I’m not arguing with anonn (since he wins every argument) and it is probably a great time to buy one of his listings (and get him a commission) before prices start going up 10% a year and renters are priced out of the market forever…

  26. Posted by whatFlujAndOthersSaid

    Again, I was merely responding to Rillion’s question on why folks constantly make mocking comments like that. It’s because the bulls around here try to explain away any apples-to-apples decreases by using such rationales, so it’s natural that bears would use those explanations mockingly. Is that so hard to believe?
    In any case, fluj/anonn has a habit of denying things he said, and my quotes just show that he actually said such things. Even if they are “sensible,” fluj/anonn has a habit of denying he said them whenever anyone mocks him.

  27. Posted by anonn

    I think you should probably read the quotes you dig up, whatFLuj. They aren’t rationalizing anything. And I wouldn’t deny any of them.

  28. Posted by whatFlujAndOthersSaid

    “Obviously, whatFlujAndOthersSaid has a lot of free time on his hands.”
    That was two searches: “north bernal anonn” and “overpaid anonn,” and I took the first 2 quotes that I saw for the former, and the first quote I saw for the latter. All of my searches along these lines have been very simple and very fast.

  29. Posted by sparky-b

    Why quote me here, was I wayyyy out of line with that statement. I stand by what I said as well. The north face of Bernal with downtown views is the prime Bernal. Is that shocking or even worth bringing up?

  30. Posted by diemos

    “Itchy feet?”
    If I recall your saga correctly you had maxed out your heloc to create a cash reserve “just in case” and had recently been reappraised to be underwater. I was wondering if you had started to ponder the possibility of walking away.
    Apparently not.

  31. Posted by Shza

    I’m definitely bearish on SF real estate but I know Bernal well and this is one instance where I would actually agree that the buyers waaay overpaid in 2005 for a crap location. It’s actually true that north bernal on down to cortland are basically a different neighborhood that this place, which is halfway to Excelsior and generally kind of gross. I can’t believe anyone paid nearly a million dollars for a small place in a marginal neighborhood at best. (And I know several people who paid less for larger places in north bernal with views in 2004.)

  32. Posted by Rillion

    Diemos – “was wondering if you had started to ponder the possibility of walking away.”
    I pondered that possibility a long time ago, hence why I maxed out the HELOC while I could (it was refrozen shortly after I did so). So far my criterea for walking away have not been met and they remain unchanged: a material change in my personal cashflow, most likely resulting from either a job loss or a significant increase in my monthly payments.
    My current after-tax outlay for housing is $2,250, down from $2,550 when I first bought my condo (a decrease of 11%). My household income is up 10% since I bought my condo.
    Why should I walk away now? Really how much money would I save by renting a 2bd/1ba condo with parking and an easy commute to downtown from a landlord rather then ‘renting’ it from the bank?
    Have I “lost” my downpayment and transaction costs, sure. But then they came from two sources, a little from my parents who took it out of the stock market in early 2007 and the bulk from stock options that would be underwater if I had held on to them. So it is very likely that most of the downpayment would have been lost anyway.
    Would I have been better off waiting? Most likely but hindsight is always more accurate then foresight. While I am “trapped” in my home for now, it is a pretty comfortable trap for my feet to be in, so I don’t mind.
    whatFlujAndOthersSaid: “do you dispute that people make the reverse comments here”
    No, I don’t dispute that there are people here that post those comments. But I do notice that the comments you post are attempts to discuss specifics and not just snark that add nothing to the discussion. If believe that it is helpful to just mock someone’s position you disagree with then I can see why you feel that posting mocking comments is as valid as trying to have a rational discussion. And for the record I have called out anonn when he has made snide or insulting comments. While I will not claim I have never given in to a moment of weakness and been unable to resist the temptation to mock someone, I do try to make sure it is not my only contribution to a forum. There are a few posters here who believe that repeating the same mocking comments on thread after thread is appropriate. That is what I objected to.

  33. Posted by ex SF-er

    I, as a RE bear, acknowledge without snark
    1) it is common knowledge/conventional wisdom to never buy the most expensive/nicest home on the block
    (it’s funny, I was going to say this before others said it!)
    2) North Bernal is a different micronabe than South Bernal
    3) these buyers may or may not have “overpaid”.
    however, IMO many (most?) buyers overpaid in 2005-2007. I’d like to see examples of people who underpaid back then. That’s the definition of a bubble.
    I had family bidding on properties in 2005-2006 and they were being told by their realtors that there were many bids so they had to bid high. IMO EVERYBODY was overbidding back then.
    thus, it is not surprising to me in the least that these people overpaid in 2005. but them overpaying doesn’t remove this as an apple. if they didn’t overpay for this house, they would have overpaid somewhere else in 2005…
    the “market” is a collection of choices made by the general population and market prices are what is paid for by the market (duh). this is one “apple” in the larger apple tree.
    hopefully SS continues to show apples, and I encourage SS to show big appreciators as well. As far as I can tell SS has done a pretty good job of showing various representative apples, although I know some disagree. I personally have no interest in a biased site. I need an objective site so that I can make informed investment decisions.
    in all likelihood we still have a very long road ahead of us.
    [Editor’s Note: It’s funny, but the people who consistently claim we fail to feature the all the “big appreciator apples” never seem to be able to provide any themselves. Or when they do, they fail to mention a fully remodeled kitchen or other such “cosmetic” improvements. Or the apple has aged enough that it doesn’t tell us much about the current market and simply demonstrates that over the long-term real estate tends to appreciate.
    We welcome any and all apples, and we don’t “cherry pick.” When we decided to write about 114 Crescent we didn’t yet know its 2005 purchase price. In fact, based on its condition we had assumed it had been recently remodeled and wouldn’t have even qualified as an apple in the first place.]

  34. Posted by Tall Guy

    Can’t we just all agree its fun making fun of other people?
    How much pride does 50k buy anyhow?

  35. Posted by anonn

    fluj/anonn has a habit of denying he said them whenever anyone mocks him
    No I don’t. I tend to put it straight when people such as you put words I never said in my mouth.
    I wouldn’t even give what you’re doing the status of mockery, either. Mockery requires an understanding of context. What you’re doing is being an idiot with a search engine.

  36. Posted by Rillion

    >How much pride does 50k buy anyhow?
    More than it used to thanks to deflation! 🙂
    (I’m all for some making fun of people as long as it is for new and interesting things and not the same tired old ribbing)

  37. Posted by khkjhjkhkj

    “SFHs in SF are back to 2004 prices on average. Condos seems worse, back at 2000-1 prices in some cases. True? False? Too facile a statement?”
    I was in the market around FEB of this year and was looking at a 1 bedroom condo around 19th-20th and California. The condo sold for its 2006 prices a few weeks later.

  38. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    Why isn’t 303 30th Street an apple then?

  39. Posted by SocketSite

    Why isn’t 303 30th Street an apple then?
    Actually, we’d say it was. Purchased February 2007 for $1,402,000, sold July 2009 for $1,299,000. Call it 7% below its February 2007 value for this single-family Upper Noe home in July.
    The follow up questions (assuming you’re going down the how much have prices really fallen path): Was February 2007 peak for Noe? If not, when was and how much farther did they run? And of course, what’s happened since July 2009?

  40. Posted by EBGuy

    Someone secure the north slope. The home at 31 Carver was taken back by the bank for $656,679 on October 5 (bought for $740k Feb. 2007). A bit rustic, but dare I say City views with the undeveloped lot next door. She’ll be comin’ round the mountain when she comes…

  41. Posted by Dan

    Carver St. is east slope Bernal. I believe this house is below the crest of the hill, and therefore without a city view (even if the lot next door remains undeveloped), especially since the house is a single story cottage.

  42. Posted by Dan

    The vacant lot at 27 Carver sold for $725,000 on 7/31/06.

  43. Posted by EBGuy

    I believe this house is below the crest of the hill
    I’m sure anonn can give us an update, but from Mapjack, it sure looks like there is a view…

  44. Posted by anonn

    Maybe you should go up there and check it out sometime considering you like talking about it so much. It seems like it should get some views looking north over the neighbor’s yard. Seems like the bank took it back at nearly 800 a foot after somebody spent 880 a foot on a 25 X 70 lot fixer in Bernal in the first place.

  45. Posted by EBGuy

    Looks like the north slope is safe for now; I just checked the building permits for 27 Carver, and, short of Death Cab taking a dive, the property owners will be erecting a 3 story abode (permit issued 5/29/09). I guess its safe to say the folks who bought 31 Carver overpaid.

  46. Posted by EBGuy

    It appears that 114 Crescent Ave. sold for $850k on Nov. 25 (over 10% off 2005 pricing), but don’t worry, we’ll make more. Down the street, 239 Crescent Ave. was taken back by the bank for $925k on January 4. Bought for $875k in 2005 with a refi in 2006 (and later, an unpermitted kitchen remodel in 2007). First Magnus and National City, where are you now?
    How is a flipper supposed to make any money when the sellers allegedly don’t disclose fire damage (only water stains on the ceilings and walls) and then there’s the issue of a non-conforming unit. The requisite Lawsuit

  47. Posted by EBGuy

    And one more thing; here’s where the victimized flipper at 239 Crescent allegedly got the money for the down payment.

Add a Comment

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