364 17th Avenue
The sale of 364 17th Avenue closed escrow this past Friday with a reported contract price of $1,484,000. The four bedroom home “on best block in the Richmond” was purchased for $1,715,000 in July 2004 (a 13 percent decline in value for the single-family home over the past six years) and had sold for $1,500,000 in May 2002.
Apples (2010) To Apples (2004) To Apples (2002) For 364 17th Ave [SocketSite]

47 thoughts on “Back To 2002 For 364 17th Avenue Not Counting The Remodeled Baths”
  1. Definitely one of the nicer areas in the Richmond (although I always thought all these nice houses were just a tad too close to Geary). It’s interesting to see how much people (over) paid in the past and then have reality smack them in the face years later. Regardless, the area has still maintained a fairly good bit of stability compared to say district 10.

  2. It’s impressive how quickly “appreciation” can be wiped out when its underlying support goes away. Take away easy mortgages with 100% financing, and, poof!
    Next up: the dot com appreciation from the days when we were minting 100 millionaires per month and thousands of hundred thousandaires. All gone.

  3. 13% under 2004. Ouch. Not the “investment” returns they expected. Fundamentals coming back into play, after 10+ years with two giant bubbles, should hit these more expensive places hard. A couple of mid-management yuppies can eke out the funds for an $800,000 place (not that they should, but they can), but it takes a big income to buy a $1.5 million home, and SF simply does not have that many big incomes to support this market. As tipster notes, funny loans propped it up for a while. I see on redfin almost 10 months of inventory for homes listed at above $1.5 million (225 listings; 24 sales in the last month). I’ll bet that rises.

  4. The July 2004 buyer paid 215K over the 1.5 million dollar asking price, and, counting the unwarranted office’s ~200 square feet, probably paid ~700 per square foot. The Central Richmond’s (1A) 68 2004 sales averaged 493 dollars per square foot. Also, two other 1-A 17th Ave houses have sold this year, one for 1.65 and one for 1.749.

  5. That’s what you had to do to buy a place in 2004 — bid over asking or you didn’t get it.
    The 2010 buyer paid $340,000 under the original 8/09 asking. And $230,000 under the 2004 sale price. And $16,000 under the 2002 sale price. That’s the difference between a very hot market (2004 — further heating for 3 more years) and a very cold market (2010 — look for further cooling for several more years).

  6. Oh Editor Adam, lol..
    Well, it was nice of you to give some material for tipster to get all hot and bothered by, but really dude…
    If we’re talking about sales in this exact area and comping them back to their most recent sale, how was 210 23rd Ave missed? You know, it did close just one month prior for $1,350,000 (bought in Nov of 2003 for $1,280,000).
    But doesn’t quite meet the vibe of the site I guess. Oh well, at least tipster got her AM fix.

  7. Ah 2004, I remember 2004.
    When you not only had to win the bidding war but you had to make a family scrapbook to convince the seller that you were worthy to purchase their home. Home baked cookies were also a plus in trying to convince the seller to bestow upon you the blessings of home ownership in SF. And you might even need to promise to feed the squirrels.

  8. Agent415, good comparison. Another ouch! 210 23rd Ave sold for just $70,000 over the 2003 sale price (and $75,000 under asking). Also, 249 17th just sold for $105,000 under the 2004 sale price ($1,650,000 vs. $1,755,000). Further evidence of slowing in this segment.

  9. The 2004 sales data also suggests that this was the most spent on a house in the Central Richmond in 2004. It was the second highest price, but it was 339 feet smaller, and a full bath less, but only 40K less expensive than 249 17th Ave, which sold for 1.755.
    That property, 249 17th Ave, is also a recent apple. It closely mirrors 364. It sold for 1.650 on July 12. But it was also purchased via overbid in late June 2004, but it was an overbid of 55K less, for a better house. Its 6% loss of three weeks ago is probably more typical than 364 17th Ave’s rather large swing.

  10. The 2002 buyer overpaid. The 2004 buyer overpaid, probably using some of the 2002 price to come up with his offer. The 2010 buyer probably thinks he got a great deal. With ~10K total cost/month to live in the Avenues, I am not so sure. Heck, maybe this property will appreciate this time.
    That’s the proof that when you make an offer YOU SHOULD NEVER LOOK AT WHAT THE PREVIOUS OWNER PAID. Except if you want to bail out the biggest fool. And I always look at Realtor’s cherry-picked comps with a grain a salt as well. They hate decreasing prices like the plague. It freezes buyers out of action and they get less sales as a result.

  11. A.T. –
    We can do this all day. How about 874 24th Ave that sold for $1,189,000 in May, vs. $918,000 in 2004?
    The point is this – why does this site (and most of it’s readership) insist on pointing out these examples of depreciation on a daily basis when theyt can just as easily point out examples of appreciation? It’s blaring. Unless a person is headless they could see it.
    On one end, I appreciate the counter-point to the SFAR rah-rah chants. On the other, why do we inists on battling biased, agenda driven press releases with… biased, agenda driven blogging?
    It’s like reading Fox News or Daily Kos to keep updated on the world. News the way you like it doesn’t make it reality.
    But hey, props to Adam. He’s a smart guy, and he’s giving you what you want, and probably gets plenty increased traffic because of it.

  12. And I always look at Realtor’s cherry-picked comps with a grain a salt as well.
    Interesting use/ non-use of the term cherry picked. You use it to describe a hypothetical comp situation when the editor puts a picked cherry at the top of the website.

  13. “We can do this all day. How about 874 24th Ave that sold for $1,189,000 in May, vs. $918,000 in 2004?”
    From the listing for that property:
    Warm and inviting…”classic” circa 1922 Edwardian meets smart circa 2010 modern lifestyle. Highlighted by a highly functional floorplan for everyday living, this traditional home has undergone extensive renovations.

  14. “how was 210 23rd Ave missed? You know, it did close just one month prior for $1,350,000 (bought in Nov of 2003 for $1,280,000).”
    From what appears to be the old listing for 210 23rd Ave:
    Remodeled, expanded, detached & bright 3-level Edwardian

  15. geoff, I know what you’re trying to do. My comment has nothing to do with the editor’s choices. But nice spin there. Trying to divert the audience away from a few facts:
    1 – The only person who will only defend your interests is yourself.
    2 – How much others are paying should be secondary to what YOU are able and ready to pay.
    3 – If you can afford a 1M home, target a 700-800K home if this home is right for you. You’ll thank yourself at the end of each and every month.
    4 – If there are no homes for sale at the price you want, just rent. Put the difference in a 5-Y CD at 2.9% and watch it grow, grow…

  16. Oh tipste, LMAO.. I’m dying here, really.
    So just to get this straight, you’re now fully emracing Realtor marketing language as fact? Funny, because you have never done this before.
    So get a clue, sweetheart. Know what you are talking about before simply repeating marketing material to suit your agenda. They put a half-bath in the *garage*.
    Clown.

  17. Actually I shed light on the facts, as they were, and brought an apple into consideration while doing so. You described what you might do when a realtor hypothetically brings you a list of comps in an anecdotal setting. Sorry, you’re entitled to your opinion, but even with your example a list of comps is a list. One property, such as 364 17th Ave, is more in line with what “cherry picked” describes.

  18. Well, Agent415 has it right. Nothing that Realtors are saying can be trusted 100% without your due dilligence. That’s 5% mostly gone to waste to feed a monopoly.

  19. Agent415, it seems to me your comments have been laid bare. By tipster.
    You have done no favors to your fellow real estate “professionals” today.

  20. I don’t get it – tipster’s comments here (the fact that 874 24th and 210 23rd have been remodeled) seem to be on point… What’s the problem, exactly?

  21. As for cherry picking comps, that why I’ve long said that a good buyer agent is mandatory. Someone who can run a true complist and help with arriving at a good value. But even the best buyer agents have a conflict due to the misaligned incentive system. So you need to be your own advocate.

  22. misaligned incentive system
    A very good way to put it.
    Say you are sued for an amount to be determined, and your lawyer is paid in proportion to the settlement amount. That’s not a good incentive to win, now is it? That’s more of less what’s going on with the industry.

  23. Agent415…
    I agree with you…wholeheartedly.
    I am getting listings (old realtor still sends them) that are selling all over the place. Some high, some low, some for asking. I am sure there is a story behind each one, as well. And, that, in itself, is what would really be interesting. Is there a pattern to all this madness?

  24. “The point is this – why does this site (and most of it’s readership) insist on pointing out these examples of depreciation on a daily basis when theyt can just as easily point out examples of appreciation? It’s blaring. Unless a person is headless they could see it.”
    What do you think the ratio is, Agent 415?
    It’s hard not to cherry-pick housing because there simply aren’t that many transactions. That’s why sellers seize on outliers that are up quickly and buyers seize on outliers that are down quickly. But the bigger problem is the lack of stats generally.
    Anyway, good to see fluj the realtor using his old playbook still. If this house was the 2nd most expensive in the area back then, it should probably still be close the the most expensive now (adjusting for significant renovations that increase value).

  25. The real estate profession is filled with hacks like Agent415. What a punk. He makes anti-women slurs at Tipster admist a number of other slurs toward the editor and commentators and then on his substantive point he gets corrected almost immediately by Tipster.
    And his reaction is to . . . run around and declare victory?
    Who is biased and can’t see reality? No wonder people choose to represent themselves and not opt to hire the real estate “professionals”.

  26. PoHill Jeff,
    “I don’t get it – tipster’s comments here (the fact that 874 24th and 210 23rd have been remodeled) seem to be on point… What’s the problem, exactly?”
    The point is that tipster is quoting from the marketing information to get “remodeled and expanded”. 210 23rd street doesn’t have a permit for any work since 2000.

  27. Sparky-b,
    You’re wrong. Agent415 admitted that work has been done. He’s just minimizing the value of that work.
    So I ask the Hack Agent Brigade (fluj and a couple of his agent reject friends) that decided to attack this morning, what their valuation of this remodel is? $100,000? $50,000? How much should we add to the 2003 price to make this more of an apple?

  28. Oh Hawkguy, don’t get your panties in a bunch, lol.
    Tipster decalred Adam’s one listing as a trend for a whole market, was shown contradictory evidence, decided that the contradictory evidence was moot based on some marketing language (and proved one post above), and then got quiet.
    Sorry dude, but you guys can have your Bay Guardian, real estate sucks, Realtors are evil, it’s all going to renatl parity dork parade on here all year. But when someone comes back just as hard, you cry.
    Cheer up, it’s just a message board.

  29. Agent415,
    I’m not crying, I don’t wear panties, and I refuse to cheer up.
    And you’re delusional.
    Tipster did not concede the point (or run away as you imagine it). The remodeling adds value. Your only defense to Tipster’s point is that this remodeling was marketed by an real estate professional and real estate professionals typical lie, therefore we should not trust this agent’s representation in his marketing materials.
    That’s what I would call an interesting defense.
    Plus, it’s a half defense. You admit that the remodeling was done. So the agent wasn’t really lying he was just exaggerating, according to you.
    In any event, your defense is moot–not Tipster’s argument. Who care’s how it was marketed? What matters is what is the added value of the renovation–which you admit occurred.
    So I ask again? What’s the value of the remodel in your professional opinion? (and no Geoff, I ask this question not because I value the input of the agents on this site–quite the opposite in fact–but for purposes of this discussion).

  30. SFHawkguy,
    Appreciate being told I’m wrong without any proof, thanks for that.
    But really, I wasn’t relying on anyone’s information, I pulled the permit history off the DBI website. The last work was permitted in ’00 and was a re-instatement of the 98-99 permits. So best case there was illegal work done at that property if anything was done recently.

  31. Sparky,
    I detected that you were being intentionally obtuse so my comment to you was a little harsh. I apologize if I misread your comment and you are truly trying to add to the discussion.
    I’m assuming Agent415 is correct that a half bathroom was added to the garage. Is your point that Agent415 is wrong about the 1/2 bath? Or that remodeling is only done in San Francisco if there is a permit? Or that the value of the remodel is diminished because of the lack of a permit?

  32. Ok, this almost getting boring.
    In short, the value of a remodel is diminished because of lack of permit. Obviously, a whole lot of variations to this, but that’s the short answer.
    In addition (and now we’re really twisting around here), the properties tipster pointed out that sold lower than ’04 levels were also remodeled to some exteent. So it’s not as though the only reason tehse few properties went abobe their ’04 price was that they had been dramatically remodeled/renovated. Tipster was wrong, she’s not even trying to defend it, so why are you? Who knows.
    Point is, if this site/you/your friends want to conveniently point to specific apples to show the market is below ’04 levels, it’s a losing proposition. It’s the daily headline here, and it’s boring.

  33. OK, so reviewing all the data points in this discussion, we have:
    1. 364 17th, the subject of this post. Renovated (unknown value) and a $231K decline since 2004
    2. 210 23rd, “remodeled and expanded” according to the listing, but no apparent permits. $70K increase since 2003.
    3. 874 24th, “extensive renovations”, $271K increase since 2004
    4. 249 17th, “stunningly renovated” (when? some permits 2007/2008), $105K decline since 2004
    Am I missing anything?

  34. My how things have changed. Now we’re debating whether nice homes are generally selling back at 2004 prices (the bulls) or farther back (the bears), and its newsworthy if an SF home sells for more than it cost six years earlier! And that was three years before the market peaked.
    The interesting debate imho is not how far prices have fallen but how much farther they will fall before finally stabilizing.

  35. No sweat, I don’t take anyone too serious here, to your questions I would say:
    1) Agent415 may or may not know anything about the house other than listing photos or what the selling agent said. I find it humorous that on this site sometimes agents are to be believed and sometimes they are totally full of it, but everyone can pick and choose when those times are. In this case, it is possible that an illegal 1/2 bath went in later without permit. The only reason to not get a permit is that it can’t be permitted or it’s not built to code. That information should be in the disclosure packet.
    2) Almost all work in SF is done with a permit, and it should all be done with a permit. There are a few exceptions, a 1/2 bath isn’t one.
    3) LMRiM once said on this site that cosmetic remodels don’t add value anyway, but I disagree with that. The lack of permit brings down value for sure. Without a permit for this 1/2 bath you don’t know if the plumbing is the proper size, has the proper drainage or is vented. You don’t know if the electrical is grounded, you don’t know if someone might complain about it next year and you have to rip it out, etc.

  36. 249 17th was already remodelled “Beautifully redone from top to bottom” in 2004 when it sold for the highest amount in 1A that year. The 2007 permit was for a streetspace, and it was issued but not completed. The 2008 permit was a plumbing permit to change out a waterheater. The property is an apple. This business of, “I see a permit but I didn’t look at what it precisely is” doesn’t help anybody out, Po Hill Jeff.

  37. Thanks for the information, geoff. Let’s call 249 17th “unrenovated”, then. Have I stated our four data points correctly, otherwise? What conclusions can we draw about the market in this area since 2004 based on this information?

  38. I’d say that the higher end properties in 1A generally show a decrease in value since 3Q2004-4Q2008 and that ~1.8M+ is for now out of the question. (There have only ever been 6 such sales, and just one over 1.9M, which was 245 23rd Ave @ 1.95M in May 2007, 3450 sq ft)

  39. Agent415 said: “In short, the value of a remodel is diminished because of lack of permit. Obviously, a whole lot of variations to this, but that’s the short answer.”
    I don’t understand why the lack of a permit is an issue and why it diminishes value. For jobs like a kitchen and bathroom remodel where an existing warranted room is already in place, I do not see any value that a permit would have as it relates to contributing towards the overall value on a price per square foot basis. Of course, for a new bath addition, or for the conversion from unwarranted space to warranted space, that is a different situation and is the difference between it being recognized as such by the city. So as it relates to the 1/2 bath in question here, I agree that it does hurt value, but I think the question of permits is a tricky one.

  40. I see your point eddy though I believe that Agent415’s assertion is also valid. Even though an unpermitted kitchen remod could be just as good (or better) than a permitted remod, the fact that a permit was pulled adds some value. For example the inspections required by permits reduce the chance that unsafe or non-code compliant work was done, especially if those sorts of surprises are hidden in the walls.

  41. Not to go off topic, but I’ll just add that I’m a true believer in efficient markets and that the market generally produces an accurate value. The whole “overpaid” meme on SS is really just an anecdote. The reality is that the “market value” for each home is what any buyer will dish out for the home at any point in time. A permit for a proper kitchen / bath remodel is not going to significantly add, or detract in the case of omission, any real value.
    But I agree with Agent415 with respect to this situation and the addition of an unwarranted bath. It’s omission detracts, as does the fact that there is bathroom in the garage! 🙂

  42. @Sparky-b,
    I’m surprised by your statement that most work in SF is done with a permit. In my home search, I’ve seen many, many houses with unpermitted renovations and “additions”. I’m thinking of all of the 800 to 1000 square foot 2/1 SFRs where there is a basement”bonus room” that can’t be counted in the sq footage because it was done without a permit.
    Not trying to be argumentative, just wondering about the source of your info.

  43. Renteragain,
    You’re right about those most are illegal and there are a ton. But, I bet they don’t go in nearly as much any more, and I was talking about new work being done without permit. There are not only those but all kind of funky work in old fixers as well.

  44. @eddy,
    “The whole “overpaid” meme on SS is really just an anecdote. ” i disagree. i think that b/c there was a culture of pricing low and encouraging the overbid it threw many people off balance. the outcome was a kind of wild west environment in which some thought they had to bid x% over asking.
    therein lies the problem-in this type of petri dish there were many folks who got caught up in this idea that x house went for $x over so this house will go for $y over.
    it was my personal experience on 4 separate occasions that the highest bid we received was much higher than the second highest bid. iow, $ was left on the table-and that $ represented the amount that was overpaid.
    in the example of the property above you can see that the buyers paid much higher $/sq.ft. than comps in the area. that is overpaying. i think they did that b/c they were outbid in some other place and thus threw $$ at the ‘problem’.

  45. i’m going to agree that the cherries picked by agent415 don’t make a case for anything much different than the apples picked by the editor. being a few bucks above a 2003 price is hardly a bullish argument. look – prices are down to ’04 and ’05 levels. get over it. that SS regularly calls them up is just an easy thing to do so it won’t change.
    as for permits and remodeling – eddy i have to assume you mainly refer to higher end homes and/or top to bottom remodels because how many people bother to pull a permit to put in a granite counter where a corian was before. or replace existing cabinets with newer and get a permit for that. and when an owner nixes permits, do they really do an inferior job? it’s their property after all, i don’t think we’re talking slumlords here are we?
    last point – we good realtors don’t cherry pick comps. i start with a wide net, then narrow them down to the most comparable, and provide the ENTIRE data set – AND encourage my clients to go through the old listing photos and marketing remarks to confirm my opinion or come up with their own. Seller’s need to do that because they almost always believe their home to be superior until they see the proof (and even then don’t see it). Buyers have often seen all of the old comps so we can hardly fool them. So the Realtor bashing here because agent415 is trying to make some point that escapes me is the problem i have with the commenters like lol and tipster. your disdain for realtors means you need to meet new realtors. do you date every woman that comes along – or are you selective with them? do you hire the first mechanic you find, or do you shop around and ask for referrals? is the schmo sitting in the cubicle next to you as upstanding as you are and to be trusted, or does every industry and company have their share of bozos?

Leave a Reply

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