January 5, 2010
On Tour As New (For The Fifth Time In Two Years): 2170 Pacific
As we wrote in March of last year:
It’s at least the fourth time a listing for 2170 Pacific Avenue has touted "On Tour as New" and "1st OPEN!" Now asking $2,995,000 with an official one day on the market according to those industry stats.
Purchased on 5/27/2004 for $2,350,000. Once again, closing price for the Dow Jones Industrial Average on that day: 9,958. On October 10, 2008 when last listed at $3,250,000: 8,174. And currently: 7,787.
Yesterday the Dow closed up at 10,583 and 2170 Pacific was listed at $2,995,000. And yes, it’s an official "one day on the market" and "on tour as new" for the fifth time since 2007.
∙ Listing: 2170 Pacific Avenue (3/3.5) - $2,995,000 [MLS]
∙ The Dow Continues To Move (While 2170 Pacific Still Hasn’t) [SocketSite]
∙ At Least Some Of The Photos Look To Be "New" As Well: 2170 Pacific [SocketSite]
∙ It's Deja Vu (But Not DJIA) All Over Again: 2170 Pacific Avenue Edition [SocketSite]
First Published: January 5, 2010 7:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Not for anything but this is a condo, not a house.
Posted by: Pumpkin at January 5, 2010 9:54 AM
How many units are in and around this place? I can't remember. Was it originally a SFH that was chopped up and turned into little flats? Are they rentals or owner occupied?
Posted by: sleepiguy at January 5, 2010 10:14 AM
Lather, rinse, repeat = infinite loop. We're going on 800-ish DOM here over the last 3+ years.
Odd that there are pet size restrictions, no? What do people think of the kitchen?
Listing says there are 4 units in the building, btw.
Posted by: anon at January 5, 2010 10:50 AM
My feeling is that this is one of those oddball properties with some major flaws that make it even more undesirable in a crap market. You can easily buy a full SFH on a prime D7 block for 2.9 (or less). Did anyone catch that 2507 Pacific hit the market for 2.5 (probably a major fixer and south side, but what a superb block!). These type condos (not really a condo, not really a SFH) have got to be down at least 30% since 04, which puts the price at something like 1.7 million. Yes? No?
Posted by: sleepiguy at January 5, 2010 11:04 AM
I caught the Pacific property and alerted the appropriate figures in my rolodex, yes. The question is whether or not its upper rooms' views clear the large estates across the street. (I sort of doubt it gets all that much of a view.) It also looks like it needs a garage pretty badly -- and that could be a battle. But it could be good. I'll check it out.
Posted by: anonn at January 5, 2010 11:27 AM
That was quick. 2507 Pacific is pending.
Posted by: FAA at January 5, 2010 12:09 PM
Guess I won't check it out, then. Man. It must have had the views.
Posted by: anonn at January 5, 2010 12:22 PM
2507 Pacific is on a superb block, so much so that a garage would not be essential. There are only single family homes on that block, so a lot of parking is available...wish I knew about that listing yesterday.
Posted by: anon at January 5, 2010 12:27 PM
I doubt that 2507 Pacific has views other than the mansions across the way. This one was about unbeatable location and potential.
Posted by: JJSF at January 5, 2010 12:30 PM
Wonder how much it was actually on the open market?
Posted by: anonn at January 5, 2010 12:33 PM
Good question, though 2507 at 2.5 was priced to go fast.
Posted by: JJSF at January 5, 2010 12:51 PM
2170 is a condo in a 5 unit and 2507 is a fully detached SFH, I think. Anyone know? 2507 gives no detailed description, no photo and it flew off the market despite some discouraging facts.
Posted by: Gigi at January 5, 2010 1:40 PM
I'm guessing the pet restriction may be due to the fact this building is close to the building where the lacrosse coach was mauled to death by a couple of Presa Canarios a few years ago?
Posted by: Fishchum at January 5, 2010 2:26 PM
2500 Pacific is one of the prettiest blocks in Pac Heights. I find it hard to imagine a home on that street would go for under $700 psft, but it looks like a fair amount of deferred maintenance on that one.
Posted by: tipster at January 5, 2010 2:44 PM
Malin had a similar listing on the south side of the 2500 block years ago - maybe 05. It sat and sat on the market and had multiple reductions. Tiny cramped rooms, wonky floor plan. Low ceilings in parts of the house. It still sold for maybe $900 a foot (according to PS). 2507, I suspect, is in even worse condition, but it's a great, great deal for someone.
Posted by: sleepiguy at January 5, 2010 3:16 PM
Someone got a bargain on 2507. I was surprised to see that it was only 3500 sq ft. That top floor most certainly had views. And adding a garage will be easy. The two homes to the left both added a garage in the last few years. Wouldn't be surprised to find out that this sold above or below asking.
As for 2170, this place is really a disaster with entrances all over the place and weird condo rules. Parking seems suspect. I'll add that if the owner changed agents, I don't really have a problem with the marketing it as new strategy. Any competent buy-side agent would be smart enough here to inform their buyer properly.
Posted by: eddy at January 5, 2010 4:41 PM
yaaaaawwnnnn..... bought for $2.35M in 2004, and the cheapest they have marketed it since is the $2.99 it's currently at.
This just can't be a serious listing.
If this were a single family it would sell for $2.4 or $2.5M.
As a condo - well, check out the yard's photo - note the lower level windows. Those are your underground neighbor's who is watching you make out with your date ala the Bachelor. All for $2.99M. If this ever does sell - they will be lucky to get $2M
Posted by: hangemhi at January 5, 2010 8:28 PM
"If this were a single family it would sell for $2.4 or $2.5M."
and 2507, as a fixer w/out a garage, flew off the shelf! in escrow-firm.
Posted by: anon at January 5, 2010 9:54 PM
2507 is only on two floors, thus the 3500 sf. The top floor is an open attic space, unlike the neighboring Victorians on the south side of the block. If you drive by and take a look, you get a better idea. It's possible to have some peek views of water from the tip of the attic but there are some monsters across the street, as well as some tall trees from Broadway estates that rival the monsters.
Posted by: anon at January 6, 2010 8:39 AM
2507 Pacific has a B&M foundation and the listing states "in need of complete remodeling". Doesn't look like anyone has lived there in years. Still a bargain at $2.5 though. That block of Pac Heights is prime, with all single family mansions too (most in excellent shape unlike 2507).
I wouldn't touch 2170 Pacific even with great reductions. Though I agree with their pet restrictions.
Posted by: JonD at January 6, 2010 10:37 AM
2507 Pacific for $2.5M? Inside sale, no question.
Posted by: northside at January 7, 2010 7:37 AM
After another 380 days on the market, the most recent listing for 2170 Pacific has once again been withdrawn from the MLS without a sale.
Posted by: SocketSite at January 19, 2011 12:43 PM
Meanwhile, the lower unit, 2164, bought in 2005 and listed for a little more than their current ask is now mentioning in its newest listing:
* no longer staged but still shows nicely! *
Attention. Your attention please. Abandon ship. Abandon ship. Ahh OOO Gah!
Posted by: tipster at January 19, 2011 12:59 PM
"Meanwhile, the lower unit, 2164, bought in 2005 and listed for a little more than their current ask is now mentioning in its newest listing:"
This would appear to have just gone for $630k, 12% below the 2005 price. Listing mentions a remodeled kitchen and bath, although it would seem that there is wide latitude as to when this was done.
Posted by: tc_sf at May 26, 2011 8:37 AM
2164 is interesting..
Apparently permits for kitchen and bath in 2000 before sale. Nothing since. Seems like an apple.
Jan 2000: $485k
Aug 2004: $600k (up 24%)
Jun 2005: $712k (up 19% from 2004, up 47% from 2000)
May 2011: $630k (down 12% from 2005, up 5% from 2004, up 30% from 2000)
And now, someone will bring in the 'inflation adjusted' numbers.
Posted by: R at May 26, 2011 9:32 AM
"And now, someone will bring in the 'inflation adjusted' numbers."
You'd think with a nominal loss like that, you wouldn't need smart alecky comments, but what's interesting is that $485K inflation adjusted is $633K in 2000 dollars, so this house sold for the exact same real dollars as in 2000. Funny how that matches the result in this quarter's Prestige Index too.
Posted by: sfrenegade at May 26, 2011 11:00 AM
This outcome could also be used to illustrate a point I made earlier regarding how the $250k capital gains exemption is less of an "unfair" giveaway then it might seem.
Had someone bought this place with cash in 2000 for $485k, then sold in 2011 for $633k, as sfrenegade points out they'd have roughly a zero real return over 11 years. Yet without the exemption they would need to pay capital gains tax on the nominal gain of $145k pushing their after tax return negative. That would hardly seem like a fair outcome.
Posted by: tc_sf at May 26, 2011 11:31 AM
"Yet without the exemption they would need to pay capital gains tax on the nominal gain of $145k pushing their after tax return negative. That would hardly seem like a fair outcome"
It's still a giveaway. If you made $145K in interest, you'd pay taxes.
It's bad policy. The old policy was slightly better, because it encouraged selling larger housing for retirement and buying smaller housing, rather than encouraging flipping. NAR won big time on that one.
Posted by: sfrenegade at May 26, 2011 11:43 AM
"It's still a giveaway. If you made $145K in interest, you'd pay taxes."
True, but there's a difference between income and capital gains.
You get $630k dollars when you sell in 2011, but in no case would you pay tax on the entire sum received. The only difference is whether the cost basis you get to subtract is in nominal or real dollars.
A higher CG rate could be implemented to make the change revenue neutral and while in the past the book keeping and calculations involved might have been onerous with modern computing this should no longer be the case.
I'd agree that a flat $250 exemption for primary residences isn't really a good way to fix this, and I'd rather see an across the board rule of inflation adjusted cost basis for all assets.
Posted by: tc_sf at May 26, 2011 11:59 AM