September 17, 2010
A Is For Apples As 110 Chattanooga #A Returns
As we wrote in October 2007:
It just under a year ago that we discovered the listing for 110 Chattanooga #B (which sold for $1,510,000). And as we noted, 110 Chattanooga is a "2-unit building on narrow lot” designed and built by Zack | de Vito Architecture in 2004. And as we also noted:
“Okay, we’ve taken the tour and if you’re a fan of modern/contemporary design we suggest you do the same (as usual, the pictures don’t do it justice). Now if we could only figure out a way to get our hands on #A…”
Well, it looks like we can finally stop scheming. 110 Chattanooga #A (the other half and home to the architects themselves) has officially hit the market. And yes, sometimes good things do come to those who wait.
110 Chattanooga Street #A ended up selling for $1,987,500 that November. It's now back on the market asking $1,998,000 as well designed apples-to-apples to be.
∙ Listing: 110 Chattanooga #A (4/2.5) 2,880 sqft - $1,998,000 [MLS]
∙ A Zack/de Vito Design (And Home) Hits The Market On Chattanooga [SocketSite]
∙ Narrow Footprint, Big Impression (110 Chattanooga St #B) [SocketSite]
∙ Zack | de Vito: Chattanooga Street Duplex Overview [zackdevito.com]
First Published: September 17, 2010 3:00 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
...let me get this straight (or gay whatever u prefer)..."110 Chattanooga Street #A ended up selling for $1,987,500 that November . It's back on the market and asking $1,998,000 today."
whaaaaa??? are you freaking kidding, me? Housing prices have fallen by up to (30)% since then!!
the improvements seem to have been done way back in 2007, SOoooooo, why would the seller be asking the SAME price that they paid back in 2007???
this is a joke..get real...only "three angels can fit in the head of a pin"...the market has burst..accept your $(500,000) loss and MOVE ON GEORGE BUSH ....
Posted by: v at September 17, 2010 5:39 PM
@v, are you kidding? There are select properties that are holding values, including condos in Soma where everyone assumes it's a nuclear winter. In any event, I've no idea the market value of this place but I don't think we're looking at a 500k loss.
Posted by: eddy at September 17, 2010 6:05 PM
Property values have, in fact, not fallen by up to 30% since then.
Many properties in Noe Valley and surrounds have increased, esp well designed, well located houses.
Posted by: noearch at September 17, 2010 6:26 PM
...i guess we'll see... :) you may be right (or really wrong)...
Posted by: v at September 17, 2010 6:26 PM
BTW - SF is totally "Lala land" where everything is built not on fundamentals but the "hope" of a fundamental...which is why I left...you've got great tech...oh, yeah, and good sushi! and I like Stinson Beach when it isn't foggy, too! :)
Posted by: v at September 17, 2010 6:32 PM
I've been in this place many times. It is very nice. But it is not $2 million nice. This last sold right at the Noe bubble apex. Top-notch Noe places seem to be down about 20% or a little more since then, in line with the rest of Real SF. Given the knockout places you can get for $2 million now, I'd be amazed if they didn't see a drop of about 300k.
Posted by: A.T. at September 17, 2010 6:32 PM
Why all the hyperbole? There is no data that I have seen that supports a 30% market drop from Nov. 2007 to present for SF real estate, more like 15%-20%. I believe 3 month trailing average is best way to smooth out the noise. Here is a link to a useful chart:
I did not grab Nov 2007 data as it was not handy to me, but instead Jan 2008, which I don't think represents a big drop from Nov 2007 for Condos/TICs and data says:
And Editor, please don't post your link about avg./med. not being pricing, thanks.
Will they get their asking, I doubt it, but 5-10% under asking for this property seems reasonable IMO.
[Editor’s Note: If people would stop confusing the two, we could stop posting the link: Medians Are Up, But Don’t Confuse That With Increasing "Prices". Now in terms of whether or not values have dropped "by up to 30 percent" in some parts of San Francisco, the answer would indeed be yes and we'd honestly be surprised if anyone would argue otherwise.]
Posted by: Skirunman at September 17, 2010 6:49 PM
@Editor: I'm sorry, but your analysis is still flawed as pointed out by many other posters on that link.
Medians/Averages are exactly what they are, a statistical representation of a data set. As I have pointed out before, over a large enough data set/time, they are the best measures we have to analyze the current state of the market. We have a large enough data set.
[Editor’s Note: Sorry but that’s not correct. While a good measure of what’s selling, it’s a lousy measure of movements in value when the mix of the data set – districts, size, quality – is changing. Might "flight to quality" sound familiar?]
[Editor’s Note Redux: And since you seem to like medians, the change for D10 single-family homes from January 2006 to August 2010? Down 32.5%. And interestingly enough, that’s a district in which we haven’t seen much change in mix.]
Posted by: Skirunman at September 17, 2010 8:13 PM
Although this style of house isn't for me, I'm pretty sure I've actually been here and it is an extremely nice place.
most San Franciscans are insane as to what they're willing/able to spend on housing, so why not float out $2M?
Not sure I agree with Noearch that "many" homes have sold in 2010 for more than they did in late 2007, although I'm sure there are a few (obviously I'm talking about apples, clearly there will be some renovation jobs that go for more than their pre-reno price).
I also think there are few houses that will actually sell for 30% under their late 2007 price in 2010, although again there will be some.
my gut feeling (which is 100% faith based, non scientific) is that the range of selling prices has been wide, but much of it in the -10.4822% to -17.3725% range.
As I have pointed out before, over a large enough data set/time
I agree with this part.
they are the best measures we have to analyze the current state of the market. We have a large enough data set.
however, I'm not sure we've had a large enough data set to make your claim.
I dug through and did the math on the source you used above, it indicated an 18.8% drop from end 2007 to Aug 2010.
however: that was for SF homes, and not 5-C. I hear a lot on SS: "it's all micro". So I'm not sure how the homes in 5-C have fared compared to the rest of the city.
I agree with others that 30% drop is hyperbole today. That may have been true during the credit crunch when loans dried up and SFers realized how dependent they were on credit for home purchases, but not now that Mama-government is helping them buy high priced homes.
Posted by: ex SF-er at September 18, 2010 4:28 AM
I made an error.
you were discussing medians. the 18.8% figure was a drop in AVERAGE SanFran SFH values from end 2007 to present
there was a 14.7% drop in MEDIAN single family home values from end-2007 to present (using your 3 month smoothed data).
I SHOULD ADD HOWEVER:
you used the wrong data set. This place is a condo and not a SFH. Thus we should use the condo data.
in this case it doesn't matter, per your site there was a 14.6% drop in median sales prices for SF condos.
LASTLY I SHOULD ALSO ADD:
I love using 3 month smoothed data, however I disagree with your use of smoothed data to come up with valuation for a prospective purchase in Sep 2010.
as we all know, the RE market has been quite volatile with quick shifts down then up.
as we also all know, RE has really slowed down in the last 6 weeks or so due to many factors (end of FTHB credit, death of the "green shoots" foolishness, political change, etc). will it be another major drop? or will it be just a blip? who knows?
Therefore, the averaging function you use smooths the data out, but it also understates real-time movements.
in this case real time movements appear to be down, and thus your smoothed data will miss that since it's not telling us what's going on in September 2010, it's telling us what WAS HAPPENING on in June, July, August 2010. (in other words, old history). Those numbers are steadily falling.
according to your source, SF condo sales dropped from 193 to 168 from July 2010 to Aug 2010, and the median price dropped from $660k to $649.5K
all that said, i sign off with my first point: my gut feeling is that it will sell lower (IF it sells), but I have no idea how much lower.
Posted by: ex SF-er at September 18, 2010 4:42 AM
@Editor: I enjoy the site and the debates so here it goes.
First, v said "Housing prices have fallen by up to (30)% since then!!". I assumed by this he meant the entire SF real estate market, or at least the entire SF Condo market, had fallen in value by 30%. No one to my knowledge has presented any data showing the market has dropped 30% in value using any accepted measures (median, mean, mean $/sq. ft, Case-Schiller) from Nov 2007 to present. Still looks to me like a 15% drop on the low side to 20% drop on the high side. I did not have time to look at just the condo market in D-5, but my guess it is in the same 15-20% ballpark. Picking an example of a different district and over the wrong time frame is not a credible response to my initial statement.
Have individual places sold for 30% or more off their peak, of course, but at the same time there are places that actually selling for more than their 2006/2007 prices. I have actually posted at least two examples on this website and sent you a few other examples through your tips email. However, these places rarely get posted on this site. I have no problem with this per se, but let's be honest that in general this site is more bearish than bullish. I'm OK with that too, as all markets need both bulls and bears and I personally have a neutral outlook on the market at this time.
Secondly, I have posted on this previously so I don't want to repeat myself, but there are really only two valid approaches to estimating the market's value at any point in time, use the statistical tools at hand (med/avg), or try to take each transaction and measure the difference in sale prices and create an index ala Case-Schiller. Both methods are estimates of the market's value and trends and each have their own set of flaws. Apples-apples as I understand its use on this site is not really a true like to like comparison and I am happy to explain why later. In any case, it is not really a valid way to measure the market's value and trends, especially if the examples are cherry picked. Sure, it gives us some insight into a single datum, but each individual transaction has too many variables to be useful at estimating the market's value or trends.
Mix schmix! Your attempt to show that mix across districts has changed so that is why med/avg has changed is inherently flawed for many reasons. Here are just a few. First, if we are talking about the market, which I am, then the mix is the market. In any case, changes in the distribution becomes less meaningful over time and increasing data set size. Secondly, districts are completely arbitrary lines drawn in the sands of San Francisco by realtors and have no inherent meaning in of themselves. If we are measuring all of SF then use all of SF data and let the mathematics handle the distribution. Third, your assumption that what has been historically low or high cost districts is not necessarily valid at the current point in time you are measuring, it is old data. Fourth, it is really impossible to know why more data is coming from a certain district in a certain time. You provided your assumption "flight to quality", but no proof and the change could be for any number of reasons or no reason. Fifth, the underlying cause for a certain datum to have its specific value is unknown. For instance, a set of high priced data from D-8 in a single time frame could be from historically lower priced places that experienced a large increase in value. Therefore, "prices" really increased a bunch, but the data would show it. Or it could be the other way around or whatever.
The bottom line is it does not matter with regards to the mathematics of probability theory and statistics. As pointed out by many others, yet ignored by you, the data is the data. Statistics is not a perfect branch of mathematics, but it is the best we have to place a simple value on a complex set of data. In any case, as an investor I ultimately look at each property on its own set of merits and only use market value and trends as a second order guide.
Posted by: Skirunman at September 19, 2010 8:24 PM
... Therefore, "prices" really increased a bunch, but the data would NOT show it. ... I wish you could edit your posts for at least 10 minutes after posting so one could fix typos.
Posted by: Skirunman at September 19, 2010 8:34 PM
Let me try to say this another way, I will agree that median/mean are not "prices" they are what they are, the median/mean of the data set. However, there is nothing called "prices" for a data set, only the price for a single transaction. There is no way to estimate if "prices" are going up or down without using one of the aforementioned methods, not perfect, but useful.
Posted by: Skirunman at September 19, 2010 8:56 PM
As you expand your dataset you become less sensitive to statistical errors but more sensitive to systematic errors from the heterogeneity of the data.
"I will agree that median/mean are not "prices" they are what they are,"
Yup, and as long as you accept them for what they are and don't try to pretend that they're something that they're not they can be useful.
"In any case, as an investor I ultimately look at each property on its own set of merits and only use market value and trends as a second order guide."
buy low, sell high will always work no matter what the rest of the market is doing.
Posted by: diemos at September 19, 2010 9:06 PM
Mean, Median, & Mode...forget the math. Let's take a sec to love that kitchen with beautiful cabinets & a fridge that is flush.
Posted by: ModGrrrrl at September 19, 2010 9:24 PM
I did not remember this, but I was cleaning out my old files this weekend and found that we had made an offer on the old place back in 2000. Looks like whoever got it then offered more than the 525k we offered :). It was an off-market deal and I don't remember who brought us in.
Posted by: formerly%whatever at September 19, 2010 10:08 PM
"Apples-apples as I understand its use on this site is not really a true like to like comparison and I am happy to explain why later."
Care to explain, Skirunman?
Posted by: sfrenegade at September 20, 2010 10:34 AM
To formerly%whatever, you must be mistaken. I was the initial owner of the 110B unit and we bought in 2004, immediately following construction. These are great homes. Zack/DeVito, the architecture team and builders, do exceptional work, some of the best in the Bay Area, with supreme attention to detail. I don't think it will sell at asking, but probably pretty darn close. It's just hard to find places of this quality.
Posted by: Toadie at September 20, 2010 11:55 AM
Toadie, we made an offer on the property that was subsequently demolished. You came in 3-4 yrs later :).
Posted by: formerly%whatever at September 21, 2010 8:49 AM
...And its in contract after 4 days. Good design still sells...
Posted by: anon at September 21, 2010 12:18 PM
surprising since their Glen Park one sat on the market so long...and that was much nicer with views
Posted by: mikey woodz at September 21, 2010 3:54 PM
"surprising since their Glen Park one sat on the market so long...and that was much nicer with views"
??? Even though they tried to get 3.35M to begin with the 147 Laidley 2.82M ~866 psqft sale was still a record price for the Glen Park.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at September 21, 2010 6:21 PM
"147 Laidley 2.82M ~866 psqft sale was still a record price for the Glen Park."
Of course, MLS shows only 3 months on the market with a reduction from $2.95M, since it was a re-list, and the stats are rigged.
At least this is a 4BR, unlike some of the 2BR places that sell in the Castro at this price. I wouldn't personally Choo Choose this design, but people seem to be big fans of de Vito.
Btw, is it a slight to the agent for 147 Laidley that they went with another brokerage this time?
Posted by: sfrenegade at September 22, 2010 8:59 AM
Did the Laidley place really only get 866/sf? That place is a wonderful, knock-out, one-of-a-kind house on an awesome street with a great view. A few years ago, 866/sf got you a crummy condo at the Beacon. Times truly have changed.
Posted by: A.T. at September 22, 2010 9:14 AM
No it's not because the same people do not own it.
As for the "stats," four months off the market plus a huge reduction = push DOM reset. What constitutes a new market if not more than an entire business quarter? It's all there for anyone with half an interest to read anyway.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at September 22, 2010 9:20 AM
I know that we usually agree to disagree on this, but my take on this is that "the pulse of the market" includes the fact that they tried to sell it for $500K+ more only a few months earlier and failed miserably. And it certainly produces rigged stats.
I've seen houses in more than one of the more expensive parts of the Bay Area (including SF) that have been listed every year, in some cases since 2007, but more typically 2008, for at least 6-10 months of each year, chasing the market down.
Posted by: sfrenegade at September 22, 2010 10:34 AM
Say what you will, the the dynamic duo (Zack/deVito) knows how to roll: three (up to $500k) tax free sales in the last 6 years by my count. Not bad work if you can get it.
Posted by: EBGuy at September 22, 2010 11:08 AM
Ok haters...this, being the featured story on SS right now, sold today for OVER asking. How about them "apples for apples."
Who said: "this is a joke..get real...only "three angels can fit in the head of a pin"...the market has burst..accept your $(500,000) loss and MOVE ON GEORGE BUSH ...."
I think your attitude just got adjusted.
Posted by: LastLaugh at November 5, 2010 3:53 PM
05/08/2012 Sold $911,500 -55.0%
11/05/2010 Sold $2,025,000 1.4%
10/04/2010 Pending sale $1,998,000
Inflated values are inflated.
Posted by: LastestLaugh at June 19, 2012 6:11 AM