January 7, 2010

The Top Half Comes To Market Two Years Later (3975 19th Street)

3973-3975 19th Street

As we wrote in 2007:

If you were wondering what was being built up at 3973 19th Street (between Noe and Sanchez), here’s your partial answer: It’s a two family residence, at least half of which (three bedrooms/two baths should be on the market at the end of the month (floor plans (pdf) available online and price TBD); and design by Andy Rogers Design Studio.

And while that lower half (aka 3973 19th Street) sold for $1,650,000 ($1,097 per square foot) shortly thereafter, the architect occupied upper half (aka 3975 19th Street) is about to be listed at $2,295,000. Call it either $866 or $929 per square foot depending upon how you measure (inside or outside the walls).

3975 19th Street Landing

Four bedrooms, three and one-half baths, three levels (with an elevator), two car parking, and one detached studio out back. Photos and floor plans online. And some big views.

3975 19th Street View

And yes, this is the home with that bed.

∙ Listing: 3975 19th Street (4/3.5) - $2,295,000 [3975-19th.com] [Floor Plans]
Andy Rogers Design Studio [rodgersarchitecture.com]
Coming Soon: At Least Half Of The Two Family At 3973 19th Street [SocketSite]
Murphy Bed 2.0 (Rodgers Architecture Style) [SocketSite]

First Published: January 7, 2010 8:00 AM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

So how does a six story house get approved in SF?? Even if the ground floor garage is considered a basement, then five stories is way over the height limit of 40 feet and is higher than the building code allows. Just asking...

Posted by: marvinsnephew at January 7, 2010 8:32 AM

By not blocking anyone else's views.

Posted by: Rillion at January 7, 2010 9:18 AM

Good location, great views. I could definitely see myself living here.

looks well done.

Posted by: ex SF-er at January 7, 2010 9:44 AM

Beautiful. The tree in front seems unfortunately placed, though.

Posted by: Po Hill Jeff at January 7, 2010 10:18 AM

marvinsnewphew -- presumably this is zoned differently for one thing, since it's 2 units, but Rillion has a point.

Did a nice job integrating the top two levels into the yard.

I noticed that on a prior thread, noearch said that the sides and rear are reinforced concrete. Does that mean you don't need to worry about a soft-story? (or maybe there's additional steel involved too?) I wonder how much that added to the construction costs.

Posted by: anon at January 7, 2010 10:39 AM

holy hotness!

Posted by: tjg at January 7, 2010 10:40 AM

Gorgeous and one of the best parts of 19th Street save for Kite Hill. My only question is no fireplace? I didn't see one in the pics and for $2.3m I'd want one. Oh yeah, and the suspended bed, while clever, is a little scary to me. Other than those two minor quibbles, it's great.

Posted by: deshard at January 7, 2010 10:58 AM

The tea room in the yard really stands out. That along with the quality wood work gives this property a subtle Asian feel.

Posted by: Mole Man at January 7, 2010 11:05 AM

And we meant to mention, pre-MLS open house tonight from 5-7pm.

Posted by: SocketSite at January 7, 2010 11:07 AM

The six storey building is allowed in this case. It's NOT about blocking views. The 40' height limit is measured in increments going up the very steep slope of this lot. So, 40' at the bottom of the slope could also be 40' at the top.

As for "soft story" there is none. the frame is most like a reinforced concrete moment frame, which is possible..Of course there is always lots of steel and re-bar in that type of construction.

Posted by: noearch at January 7, 2010 11:46 AM

Very nice. Curious as to people's thoughts on pricing.

Posted by: huh? at January 7, 2010 11:47 AM

the photos of the Murphy Bed reminded me of the Carol Doda incident in North Beach a long time ago. here is a quote from the internet:
"a piano that once descended from hydraulic cables from the ceiling at the Condor became an accidental instrument of death; post Doda (who used the piano in her original dance routine) on November 23, 1983. After hours, Jimmy "The Beard" Ferazzo and a dancer at the club were having sex on the piano. The hydraulics mechanism malfunctioned and the piano rose to the ceiling, crushing Ferazzo to death. His girlfriend survived due to the protective cushioning of Ferazzo's body."

Posted by: snider at January 7, 2010 12:31 PM

Wow...beautiful house. I would live there in a second! Love the tea house, and the walk out south facing yard.

Posted by: curmudgeon at January 7, 2010 12:32 PM

@deshard: I don't know why anyone would want or care about having a fireplace in SF. It has never once been cold enough here to necessitate having a fire. And it's terrible for the environment.

Posted by: anon at January 7, 2010 1:50 PM

I have friends that live on the hill above this place, it can indeed get cold up there. They have a fireplace (gas) and it is nice to sit by it on some of those cold windy summer nights.

Posted by: Rillion at January 7, 2010 1:55 PM

@anon:...ah........what planet..I mean city...do you live on..? yea, at times it does get cold enough here to enjoy a fireplace...

ever heard of a thing called a GAS fireplace?

just asking.

Posted by: noearch at January 7, 2010 2:10 PM

Scotty, I need more power!!

I think we crashed the site.

Message reads: Bandwidth Limit Exceeded.

Good job guys.

[Scotty’s Note: They’re giving her all she’s got, Captain! (But we've been told they hope to give her even more soon.) Cheers.]

Posted by: sflooking at January 7, 2010 2:33 PM

I agree completely with anon re fireplaces. I have one, which I have never and will never use. Noearch, your statement is absurd to someone (anyone) who came here from the east coast. 40 degrees isn't cold enough for a fireplace, let alone mid-40s, which is really as cold as it ever gets in the middle of the night in SF. I didn't even miss not having a fireplace in Boston. And anon's correct about the environmental damage from woodburning fireplaces; your point is certainly taken about gas ones though.

But to each his/her own. To bring this somewhat back on topic, the lack of fireplace certainly wouldn't affect my valuation of this place, except maybe to increase it since the space can be used for something more useful. Agreed this home is beautiful, though I'd still rather not have downstairs neighbors.

Posted by: Shza at January 7, 2010 3:20 PM

nope...it gets plenty cold here some nights in the deep of winter...to enjoy a gas fireplace...I'm org from the midwest, so yes, I know what cold cold is...

fireplaces often are turned on not only for radiant warmth, but for the coziness and focal point of a room. for this price point, I would certainly expect a gas fireplace. My own house has one and we use it quite often.

Posted by: noearch at January 7, 2010 3:29 PM

The reference: Scotty, I need more power!!
I think we crashed the site.

was made to the www.3975-19th.com site.

As for fireplaces here is what I have and love.

http://www.ecosmartfire.com/en/home

they can be portable and do not emit.

[Editor’s Note: With respect to the reference, we know and pinged the appropriate people. We don’t like dead links on the site (even if it's our traffic that's to blame). With respect to fireplaces, we happen to be partial to them as well. And not only gas, but wood (especially in the form of an efficient wood stove).]

Posted by: sflooking at January 7, 2010 3:34 PM

ok, noearch, i'll bite again. how many nights last year did it drop below 20 degrees on this particular hill that is apparently *much* colder than the rest of temperate SF?

and obviously different people value or experience the "coziness" of a fire to different degrees (if at all). i'm sure this place will find a buyer.

Posted by: anon at January 7, 2010 3:37 PM

Anon, you do seem to be living on another planet. One of the reasons that people like fireplaces is that homes are not built here with cold temperatures in mind. Many homes are very poorly insulated and so even though it's only in the 40's or 50's outside it can feel quite cold inside. You must live in a brand new well insulated building or you're grossly overweight.

Posted by: 94114 at January 7, 2010 4:11 PM

There was a very similar property just up the street which was listed and delisted multiple times last year and ended up for rent on Craigslist and is now tenant occupied. It will be interesting to see if both properties end up on the market in the new year and at what price.

http://www.climbsf.com/listings/san-francisco/4419-19th-st.html

Posted by: Ronald at January 7, 2010 4:37 PM

no, i'm quite slim (thank you) and live in an old house. but, like most people, i have central heating. it's really pretty amazing -- you set the thermostat to a comfortable temperature and - voila! - it doesn't "feel quite cold inside."

also, this condo *is* brand new, so your comments don't have much relevance to this post.

Posted by: anon at January 7, 2010 4:55 PM

It's funny how a single topic can become the focus of a discussion here; re: the fireplace issue.

Some people like and use them. Some don't.

Just discussed the issue of a fireplace (gas) in a new building, with one of my real estate agent contacts. He says many people ask for them and in fact "with our cold summer climate here, lots of people turn them on in July and August to take the chill off our lovely summers..."... They also add value to a property, usually about $7-10k for a fireplace.

So...I think this is a great property. For the money I do wish it had a fireplace in the main living space. It would be useful and enjoyed.

Posted by: noearch at January 7, 2010 5:04 PM

I have a wood-burning fireplace in my Hummer, which I park right in the middle of the acre of pavement that is my front yard.

Posted by: First Liar at January 7, 2010 5:08 PM

I have a loft rental where the only source of heat is a gas fireplace. The tenant has never complained, but I'm wondering, would this diminish or increase the value of the unit if and when I decided to put it on the market for sale?

Posted by: SOMA Loft Guy at January 7, 2010 5:38 PM

And you believe your "RE Professional" friends on that score, noearch? $7-10k is a completely negligible percentage of the purchase price of an SF home. There is absolutely no legitimate way of deriving that number as the value of a single variable (presence or lack of a fireplace). I do believe you that that's the snake oil your buddies sell to their "clients," though.

Posted by: anon at January 7, 2010 6:24 PM

live in an old house. but, like most people, i have central heating. it's really pretty amazing -- you set the thermostat to a comfortable temperature and - voila! - it doesn't "feel quite cold inside."

So you heat your entire home to a comfortable temperature while others use their gas fireplaces to heat the room they are in and keep the rest of the house much cooler.

Hmmm...

Posted by: BobN at January 7, 2010 6:50 PM

Wow...one little comment and voila!

I also said it's still a great house, but as a native New Englander, I love sitting by a (gas) fire and don't tell me that it doesn't get cold enough here to warrant it. Heck, I remember wearing a heavy coat on my first July 4th in the city to walk my dog (who also loved laying near the fire).

So, lighten up and just accept the fact that a house for $2.3m that doesn't feature a fireplace is definitely a little unusual. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Posted by: deshard at January 7, 2010 8:58 PM

@ anon: wow, you seem to bring negative attitude to every comment you make here...you seem extremely rigid to other opinions, unfortunately.

Yes, I trust my real estate professional completely when it comes to pricing and value. I have known him for 25 years, he's been in the business for 35..and offers me always solid, professional advice.. And yes, a fireplace WILL add from $7-10k in value to a property. I trust him and I believe him.

Posted by: noearch at January 7, 2010 9:24 PM

I could not care less about the fireplace and the murphy bed.

How do you get up to the fifth floor - elevator? - and how do you get big furniture up there?

if there were floor plans on the site i missed them.

[ Links to the floor plans are above (along with a reference to the elevator which services the third and fourth floor).]

Posted by: Louis at January 7, 2010 9:39 PM

Many homes in SF, including places in the million-dollar and up range, do not have central or any other adequate heating system. In addition, as commented above, they're poorly insulated. I have a friend from Canada who says she's never been colder than in an SF apartment. I moved here from NYC and can't wait to install a gas fireplace/stove, because otherwise my place is a constant 62 degrees in the winter.

Anyone on this thread have a good tip on an attractive, well designed model of natural gas fireplace or stove that you recommend? Links appreciated!

Posted by: sunnyvalesteve at January 8, 2010 12:10 AM

sunnyvalesteve,

I would start with Blaze (linked at name) they carry lots of lines, plus know the codes on venting.

As far as the value of them I think it is hard to peg. It may only add $7-10K to the house (which is a wash to the cost), but it is expected at these prices so not having it may bring down the perceived value by more. Of course if you have one but put a TV over it then what does it do to the value?

Posted by: sparky-b at January 8, 2010 8:35 AM

I have a gas/wood burning fireplace, and while I don't rely on it for my primary source of heat, it is nice to have the option to have a fire going for mere ambiance. I opt to use the gas feature 95% of the time particularly when I have guests over. It was a stunning focal point of the open living space when I bought the house 5 years ago mid-winter. Rarely will you ever see a homewoner plaster over an existing (working or nonworking) fireplace.

Posted by: Solis at January 8, 2010 9:42 AM

The architects of this place really missed an opportunity to create a combination Murphy-elevator-fireplace. Imagine coming home, laying on your bed on the ground floor and pressing (4) on the elevator-bed. When you arrive switch to fireplace mode, enjoy a cocktail by the fire. When bedtime arrives, just press (5) and the fireplace and bed both travel up to the bedroom. Oh, the luxury !

As for fireplaces, wood burning is the only way for me. Without the random nature of a real fire, it is just a fancy show off heater. I remember the first time I encountered one of the fully automatic gas fireplaces in a hotel suite. You flick a switch and WHOMPH, the fire turns on. I spontaneously fell to the floor laughing.

This summer I scored half of 35yr old coast oak. Next winter is gonna be really toasty !

Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at January 8, 2010 10:31 AM

LOL, Milkshake.

The last time I used real firewood, I had a coat closet full of beetles. It was Duraflames and gas from that point on. Short of the "fancy show off heater", I went to a Holiday party and every room had a "Yule Log" going on their flat panel screen (including the one above the real fireplace!

Posted by: Solis at January 8, 2010 11:03 AM

obviously milkshake, you seem to forget that wood burning fireplaces, including yours are a source of air pollution.

and it is a real problem in urban areas..unless your fp is in the middle of your remote 1000 acre ranch, it seems like dont mind polluting.

ever hear of "spare the air day"?

Posted by: noearch at January 8, 2010 11:18 AM

noearch - Of course I know about spare the air. In fact today is a no-burn day. I comply happily. Here's the site to bookmark : http://www.sparetheair.org/

My favorite weather in which to burn is on rainy days which knocks that soot right out of the plume.

And I assure you that the pollution that my lifestyle produces is far far below what the average bay area resident generates. Even with my inefficient wood burning fireplace.

Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at January 8, 2010 11:37 AM

now I feel much better.

Posted by: noearch at January 8, 2010 11:50 AM

Anyone on this thread have a good tip on an attractive, well designed model of natural gas fireplace or stove that you recommend?
For my money, the Tree of Life gas stove (with 180deg. viewing) is one of the prettiest stoves out there. It keeps me wondering if I need to stimulate the economy with my home ATM.
Then again, wimpy California code requires you to vent to the outside (and lose that precious heat!) An alternative is the EcoSmartFire which is a burner that uses denatured alcohol. Denatured Ethanol is a plant derived fuel, made from readily available renewable crop resources and as such meets the requirements as a qualifying [biomass] fuel stipulated in the [tax] code

which means the purchase qualifies for a 30% tax credit. (YMMV)
MS - you're renewable. And who says there's no side benefits to SOD?

Posted by: EBGuy at January 8, 2010 11:52 AM

It's not a wimpy code. It's about safety.

Posted by: noearch at January 8, 2010 12:19 PM

It's about safety. We certainly could go back and forth with discussing "indoor air quality" and health effects, but in regards to safety, all modern ventless units are equipped with Oxygen Depletion Sensors. I'd give anything to be able to slap a ventless model in my downstairs.
Has the use of ventless products led to any CO (carbon monoxide) deaths? In the United States, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), which is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death related to home appliances, has stated that it is not aware of any documented incident in the CPSC In-Depth Investigation (IDI) database of fatal carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning associated with an ODS-equipped ventless gas heating product. In the United Kingdom, approximately 15 million ODS-equipped ventless units have been installed with no reported CO deaths.

Posted by: EBGuy at January 8, 2010 12:42 PM

Does anyone know whats going on 4 blocks down on 23rd between the same blocks? Is it sec or just owner remodel?

Posted by: johnny4114 at January 22, 2010 9:26 PM

johnny4114,

Do you mean on Elizabeth? If so it's spec.

Posted by: sparky-b at January 23, 2010 11:35 AM

The men who own the lower unit are abosultely fabulous. Great neighbors.

Posted by: auden at January 24, 2010 2:37 AM

sparky-b

No I saw those are 2 units on Elizabeth. There's a shingled building with black trim. It's been under construction for a while. Looks to nice for spec.

Posted by: johnny4114 at January 24, 2010 4:11 PM

johnny4114,

I would guess that the 23rd street place you mentioned is a spec. as well. Bank of Marin financing sign out front, not what you would expect a homeowner to put out there.

Posted by: sparky-b at January 27, 2010 4:59 PM

3975 19th is already in escrow. Unbelievable at that listing price.

Posted by: 94114 at January 28, 2010 9:03 AM

in escrow, yes, we bought it, bidding war,... the heating is the best solution in the world: radiant floor heat streaming from the new hardwoodfloors, super efficient, no loss like forced air....want cozy...here's cozy; you can walk around bare feet, even if its -30 outside, thats how well a munchkin boiler produces .

wish us luck. we love everything about it. architect is a genius, not many places in SF finished this well..location.. in the middle of everything, walk anywhere, yet peaceful, secure and private, even has a painting studio, and play yard

bang bang,..

Posted by: Bang Bang take your money at January 30, 2010 12:00 AM

This is good indication that high quality new construction in great locations can still command high prices. Congratulations to the buyer and seller.

Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at January 30, 2010 9:26 AM

more censorship by the editor.

this property being in escrow after multiple parties went after it does not quite square with the 40-50% discounts some frequent posters have predicted.

[Editor’s Notes: The entirety of kid char’s "censored" comment:

i guess these buyers (and the others involved in the bidding war) did not wait for tipster's 40-50% off pricing.

Try adding some value rather than simply trolling under multiple names and your comments will survive just fine.]

Posted by: [kid char] at January 30, 2010 2:52 PM

"more censorship by the editor."

meh.

"this property being in escrow after multiple parties went after"

Only shows that the offer price was less than its current value. That it sold for 900/sqft I would agree is a good result.

"it does not quite square with the 40-50% discounts some frequent posters have predicted."

What it would have sold for a couple of years ago at some hypothetical "peak" will remain forever a matter of speculation.

Re: censorship

Our editor tirelessly strives to maintain a high level of discourse on the topic of SF real-estate for which I am grateful. (and he deletes some of my posts too) Without those efforts this site would quickly degenerate into playground style name calling.

Posted by: diemos at January 30, 2010 3:09 PM

riiiight. so calling someone out for his tireless bear cheerleading when he is again shown to be way off base- that's not okay?

and editor, "Try adding some value rather than simply trolling under multiple names and your comments will survive just fine.]" i have changed my handle to anonee-its you that keeps changing it back thereby giving the impression of multiple names. as to trolling...hmmm. i'm not sure what you mean by that. what is it about anything i've posted that you do not find admissable. you seem okay with letting everyone take shots at fluj. how is that different?

so, diemos, are you saying that $900/sq.ft. is anywhere near 40-50% off??

"What it would have sold for a couple of years ago at some hypothetical "peak" will remain forever a matter of speculation. " really? are there not comps to look at? were there any properties around there that were sold for $1,600-$1,800sq/ft.?

Posted by: anonee at January 30, 2010 7:32 PM

^Nope. From what I've seen that area is around -15% at this point.

Posted by: diemos at January 30, 2010 7:39 PM

we do not know if the buyer paid over asking so perhaps this will sell for more than $900 sq/ft.

"that area is around -15% at this point."

during the greatest recession/depression the world has seen in 70-80 years you might concede that the local market has been resilient beyond belief. fluj was right when he said "its all micro".

i'll admit that i thought we would see much greater declines by this point. i am still not seeing any great deals out there.

Posted by: anonee at January 30, 2010 8:01 PM

"during the greatest recession/depression the world has seen in 70-80 years you might concede that the local market has been resilient beyond belief."

Conceded.

"fluj was right when he said "its all micro"."

No. Micro explains the pricing differences between properties and areas within a market, but micro floats on a sea of macro.

Prices did not double because the views got twice as viewier, or pergraniteel got twice as pergraniteelier, or the cafes got twice as cafeier. Prices doubled because first a flood of dot.com option money entered the market and then a flood of stupid loans entered the market.

My view remains the same. Based on long term price/rent and price/income ratios SF property was overvalued by a factor of two at the peak. In the absence of unprecedented government intervention in the financial system we would already be back at 50%. If you believe in the bankster's munificent nature or at least that it's in their self interest to continue this intervention then you might want to jump into the market at this point. If, as I do, you believe these are temporary measures designed to allow an orderly unwind and to transfer as many liabilities from private balance sheets to the government as possible then you might want to wait a while before going long real estate.

Between job losses, loan recasts and the unwinding of government support I still see a lot of headwinds for the market.

"i am still not seeing any great deals out there."

Neither am I. The sellers out in Livermore are still looking for 250/sqft for an SFR. Too much.

Posted by: diemos at January 30, 2010 8:38 PM

Those who think the game is over already should consider this.

"Daniel Alpert from Westwood Capital who's predicting 8-10% decline under last year's bottom: The lion's share of the remaining decline will occur in markets that saw sizable bubbles but have not yet retrenched".

Sounds familiar? That guy's probably reading SocketSite ;)

No victory dance yet or concession speeches please. The issues that created the crash are still there. They patched the dinghy but it's not proven it can cross oceans.

Posted by: wow at January 31, 2010 12:05 AM

"i'll admit that i thought we would see much greater declines by this point. i am still not seeing any great deals out there. Posted by: anonee at January 30, 2010 8:01 PM"

-----

"..now could be an excellent time to find a fixer in a depressed market. now could be an excellent time to negotiate a great price on a multifamily building seeing as the lembi portfolio is flooding the market and financing is tight... Posted by: anonee at January 30, 2010 7:51 PM"

(from the 104 Collins thread)

Which is it anonee ? Are there good deals out there or not ?

Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at January 31, 2010 10:17 AM

I seem to remember saying something about this neighborhood could command 900 a foot a couple years ago. Seem to remember taking a lot of heat for it. Huh.

Posted by: anonn at January 31, 2010 12:55 PM

and now $900/ft is the post peak discount price, lol.

mod, i'm still not seeing any good deals on 4unit or less but there do seem to be some good multiunit
deals. my point above was that now could be a great time to buy if a good deal came up rather than waiting 2-3 years as the anonymous poster contended. i agree with what you and anonn said on the 104 collins thread.

Posted by: anonee at January 31, 2010 3:23 PM

"and now $900/ft is the post peak discount price, lol."

anonee/kid char, you are too funny. Let's take a look at what $930/sf bought you a few years ago (now at $622/sf):

http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/555-4th-St-94107/unit-733/home/18912154

lol is right. Wait 2-3 more years and it'll all be down another 20-25% beyond the precipitous drop from 2006-07. Or you could just jump on one of those "good deals" like so many did in recent years ("SF real estate only goes up").

Posted by: anon at January 31, 2010 4:40 PM

soma condos are now comparable to the subject property and location?

Posted by: anonee at January 31, 2010 8:11 PM

"soma condos are now comparable to the subject property and location?"

OK, I'll spell it out for you. No. That $900/sf you "lol" about bought you nothing but a crummy SOMA condo 3 years ago. Now it buys you this knockout place in a great neighborhood while you can get the exact same SOMA condo for 622/sf. Get it? It illustrates how prices have fallen. A lot.

Posted by: anon at February 1, 2010 6:21 AM

It illustrates also that prices have fallen "a lot" in some locations but not others.

Posted by: Dan at February 1, 2010 8:17 AM

OR you could have bought 4140 20th street (see link)for $828/ft. or a number of other Castro area places.

SOMA does not equal CASTRO get it? you did not spell it out. I'll spell it out "it's all micro bro."

Also LOL has more than outlived it's welcome. Are you all really sitting in your cubicles laughing out loud.

Posted by: sparky-b at February 1, 2010 8:21 AM

This has to be one of the best threads I've seen:

"OK, I'll spell it out for you. No. That $900/sf you "lol" about bought you nothing but a crummy SOMA condo 3 years ago. Now it buys you this knockout place in a great neighborhood while you can get the exact same SOMA condo for 622/sf. Get it? It illustrates how prices have fallen. A lot."

Posted by: tipster at February 1, 2010 1:40 PM

The sale of 3975 19th Street closed escrow today with a reported contract price of $2,360,000 (3 percent over asking). Don't forget those invitations to the housewarming. We're calling dibs on the retractable bed.

Posted by: SocketSite at February 8, 2010 1:51 PM

"OK, I'll spell it out for you. No. That $900/sf you "lol" about bought you nothing but a crummy SOMA condo 3 years ago. Now it buys you this knockout place in a great neighborhood while you can get the exact same SOMA condo for 622/sf. Get it? It illustrates how prices have fallen. A lot."

Oh yeah? Three years ago, going back to early August 2006 and onto today's date in 2007, whether ~890 a foot per the tax records or ~950 a foot per the builder this sale would have been about 10% better than anything any Castro condo did during that time. In fact, I only see two 2M+ 5-K condos ever. This one was 10K more expensive, albeit arguably 50 feet smaller, than 700 Noe which sold for 2.35M in 2005. That's right. Per the tax records 3975 -- and it's new construction, mind -- Castro is the most expensive 5-K condo ever.

What this sale plainly illustrates, err, sorry, "spells out" is that really nice properties in nice parts of area 5 can still command peak dollars. Period. All talk of SOMA 900 this and now this area that can get thrown out the window. And again. I sure took a lot of heat for talking about SFRs could command 900 a foot a couple years ago.

Lately there are like four people doing most of the talking about values on here. It's obvious they're nowhere near the marketplace. Closer to their own navels, surely. It'd be nice if they knocked it off.

Posted by: anonn at February 8, 2010 2:49 PM

err. switch builder and tax records in the first part.

Posted by: anonn at February 8, 2010 3:04 PM

Post a comment


(required - will be published)


(required - will not be published, sold, or shared)


(optional - your "Posted by" name will link to this URL)

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


Continue Perusing SocketSite:

« Academy of Art About To Learn A Hard Lesson (Or Not)? | HOME | Polk Street Parking Lot Shuttered, Apartments Ready To Rise »