2007 9th Avenue Dining
The sale of 2007 9th Avenue closed escrow this past Friday with a reported contact price of $1,089,000, $482 per listed square foot for the remodeled District 4 single-family home.
And yes, that’s 1 percent over asking but 8 percent under its purchase price in 2006.
Faucet Over The Stove? Yes. Television Over The Fireplace? Well… [SocketSite]

8 thoughts on “One Percent Over Asking (Eight Percent Under 2006) At 2007 9Th Ave”
  1. Disagree with bernalkid here. It’s helpful to know that some houses in Forest Hill are selling for under 2006 prices.

  2. Yeah, that’s not shadenfreude. There was a discussion the other day about the editor only showing steep losses. Here he shows us a slighter loss.

  3. Longtime reader, posted I think twice before.
    So my take on this – it’s not really shadenfreude, I guess. It is a little repetative though. A house is down 8% below it’s 2006 purchase price…
    Ok, is that really newsworthy at this point? Especially to people who read this site? Just sorta seems like the title to 75% of the posts, and something that could be said about almost all financial instruments.
    Not trying to bag the editor, I like the site. Just seems sort of constant at this point.

  4. The ed. posted on this place before it sold — didn’t know if it would go for higher or lower than the previous sale or by how much. He is now just concluding the post with the news of the sale.
    I agree it is no longer news when a place sells at 8% less than four years ago (although predicting this in 2006 would have been met with guffaws). But it is news when a place sells for less than 2004, or 2003, or 2002 prices (I suspect that will soon no longer be news either). And 2009 “comps” are certainly interesting to see if all those who maintain the bottom was a year ago are right.

  5. Longtime Lurker – while perhaps repetative, and not “news worthy,” such information is relevant because it shows us the condition of the market. That the market is flat is just as useful a bit of information as if it were going higher or lower.
    What’s more, this property was noted ont he site back when it was listed. The editor is simply closing the loop on this story. It’s not his fault that this datum is merely consistent with what else we’ve seen.

  6. I don’t get these “schadenfreude” comments. I mean, I know what that is, but:
    1) Are we saying that it’s only OK to post or comment on houses that have gone up in price at the time of sale?
    2) Judging by the still-present bullish comments, I don’t think that a consensus has yet been established that there’s been a market decline. Therefore it seems appropriate to post these, even if it’s “not newsworthy”, according to some people.
    3) Complaining about schadenfreude is a comment on the tone, not the substance, of something. Does it really matter whether the poster (or commenter) is gloating? Let’s argue the facts, here.

  7. “2) Judging by the still-present bullish comments, I don’t think that a consensus has yet been established that there’s been a market decline. Therefore it seems appropriate to post these, even if it’s “not newsworthy”, according to some people.”
    riiiight. the bullish comments generally mock tipster’s 40-50% off claims. they also point out that when someone pays $750/sq.ft. (in a $500sq.ft area) and then sell into this market that ‘the market’ is not down by this amount.

Leave a Reply

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