January 14, 2011
No 2006 Repeat For 4381 26th Street In 2010 And Now Back In 2011
As we wrote this past June:
On the market in 2006 asking $2,479,000, the Mark Brand designed contemporary single-family at 4381 26th Street sold for $2,600,000 in a month, an outcome that was more the rule than an exception for the market at the time.
As a plugged-in tipster notes, the Noe Valley home is back on the market four years later and asking $2,479,000. Will the same list price (and pics) yield similar results in 2010?
Withdrawn from the MLS in November without a sale in 2010, 4381 26th Street returned to the market today asking $2,350,000, a sale at which would represent an "apples-to-apples" 10 percent drop below its 2006 value for the contemporary Noe Valley home.
∙ 4381 26th Street Listed At 2006 Price And Looking For A Repeat? [SocketSite]
∙ The Wood, The Stone, The Windows...Oh My! [SocketSite]
First Published: January 14, 2011 12:00 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
It's so sad to see a homeower come to the realization that his losses won't be limited to a quarter of a million dollars.
And it's getting worse. There were 200 new listings in the last week to 27 sales. Inventory was already at an all time high and yet, we're listing more than 8 times as many homes as are selling.
And I'm seeing more and more listings with very old previous purchase dates. They can undercut ANY other listing because of their low purchase price. It's got to feel hopeless for the sellers of this place.
Posted by: tipster at January 14, 2011 2:06 PM
The January listing surge is a seasonal phenomenon. It happens every year.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at January 14, 2011 2:47 PM
Thankfully this is old, new construction in Noe. New, new construction should command a premium. BTW, why the heck can't I find it on the MLS.
Posted by: EBGuy at January 14, 2011 3:25 PM
"The January listing surge is a seasonal phenomenon. It happens every year."
We don't know until late February whether this years is worse or better than other years. I'm keeping my eye on months of inventory. Will we get an inventory update soon?
Posted by: sfrenegade at January 14, 2011 3:51 PM
2006 prices + largest drop real estate decline in modern history + 5yr I/O = ???
(not that this owner has a 5yr I/O, I don't know, but many 2006 and 2007 buyers did)
Posted by: badlydrawnbear at January 14, 2011 6:11 PM
Didn't the house across the street sell for a 35% increase from 2006?
Tipster is a renter.
Posted by: Jimmy C at January 15, 2011 11:31 PM
I don't see any pics...
The January listing surge is a seasonal phenomenon. It happens every year.
Every year there is a late winter/early spring listing surge, however traditionally that surge happens after the Super Bowl.
as the RE downturn has hit across the country, one change that has happened is that the listing surge has happened earlier and earlier in the season.
we'll have to wait until a few weeks after the Super Bowl to see if this surge is more or less than years past, since it is shifted.
we'll also have to treat 2010 as a special year due to the First Time Home Buyer Credit which was anomalous.
Posted by: ex SF-er at January 16, 2011 4:57 AM
"The sky is falling" comments are getting old. yes, prices are down from 2006... no s**t!
From what I've seen in Noe, the $1 million to $1.6 million market is booming with multiple bids.
You are right Jimmy... Tipster seems like a bitter renter.
Posted by: Charlie at January 16, 2011 7:56 AM
Charlie the realtor dictionary:
"bitter" = the sensation one feels after having avoided investing in a property class shortly before a cataclysmic financial collapse in the values of that property class. The sensation is heightened if one anticipated the collapse and based the decision not to invest on that expectation despite an overwhelming consensus that one's expectation was laughably unlikely.
Most dictionaries define this as relieved, or content, or delighted.
Posted by: A.T. at January 16, 2011 11:11 AM
Only in a city with rent control would a renter be viewed as in an enviable position AT. You must be a renter too.
Posted by: larry at January 16, 2011 3:55 PM
there are good reasons to rent: short term stay, getting to know the area, potential to be moved by a job, waiting for the right house and neighborhood, etc...
as for this "overwhelming consensus " i am not sure about that. most people knew that prices had gone up and then way up and that the cycle was likely getting long in the tooth.
what the commenter meant was that some might be bitter having watched and waited and then been priced out and now are cheering the market down so that they can finally get in or at least be able to gravedance.
Posted by: anonee at January 16, 2011 4:48 PM
Oh, yes, yet another house that was granted exemptions from size regulations because it was to be "the family home." Sure.
Posted by: MCM at January 17, 2011 11:37 AM
What exemption from size regulations are you talking about?
Posted by: sparky-b at January 17, 2011 1:15 PM
Welcome back sparky-b. May the force be with you.
Posted by: EBGuy at January 17, 2011 2:00 PM
Sorry, larry, not a renter. Didn't miss out on anything on the buy side. Although I admit I would have been better off selling our place three years ago and becoming a renter. But c'est la vie.
The real "bitter" ones are those who bought a place in the last 6-7 years to now see their losses continue to mount in addition to having paid 2-3X comparable rent in the first place. Ouch! "Bitter 'owner'" is a far more prevalent phenomenon in SF than "bitter renter."
Posted by: A.T. at January 17, 2011 2:09 PM
Did someone say I was "Better"? Oh I fully admit to being "better".
I'm "better" off because I didn't buy and I'm not going to lose a ton of money or become trapped in my home for two decades. I paid 1x rent rather than 2-3x rent so I'm "better" off. I feel "better" too. And as prices continue to sink, I'll be better and better!
So, yes, call me a "better renter". On that we can agree!
Posted by: tipster at January 17, 2011 2:25 PM
I'm a butter renter because I really don't smear anything on dinner rolls and instead just gnaw them unadorned.
I know it took effort for the waiter to put those butter pats onto a plate and deliver it to the table. I'm paying for that effort in the form of the total tab despite only using the butter as a temporary table decoration. When I'm gone the butter is available for the next diner. Ergo butter renter.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at January 17, 2011 2:49 PM
Everybody who says anything positive or follows one small market segment, like Charlie's Noe take, is a realtor, eh AT? Like a great many things you say on here, that's not a likely thing an owner would say. As opposed to Charlie's comment, which was something an owner in a particular area might very well say.
Posted by: [anon.ed[ at January 17, 2011 4:23 PM
Oh come on, flujie. Non-realtors know about "multiple bids"? Charlie is pretty transparent.
And here are a few recent examples of his "booming" segment of the Noe $1 million to $1.6 million market - no cheerleading there:
I guess there is a bit of a "boom" in places in this market segment having fallen from a substantially higher price a few years ago. Some nice half-million-dollar losses there. If this is the result of all those "multiple bids" I'd love to see what the rest of the bids were! I suppose it is possible that Charlie is not a bitter realtor but a bitter would-be seller just hoping and praying that he can convince someone, anyone, if his so-called multiple-bid "boom".
Posted by: A.T. at January 17, 2011 4:58 PM
Leaving the land of name calling for a moment and getting back to the world of facts...
Regarding the house across the street that sold for 35% more then in '06, according to Ziliow the one recently sold home across the street is 4366 26th St. They show a $1.34M sale 11/2010 and a $985k sale in 5/2005
The Zillow description refers to the house being "tastefully upgraded" with a "Remodeled Gourmet Kitchen" but it is not clear if this was done before or after the 2005 sale, so it may or may not be an apple.
Anyone have any evidence one way or the other?
Posted by: tc_sf at January 17, 2011 5:57 PM
@tc_sf/Jimmy C: No apple at 4366 26th Street. November 2005 permit for kitchen remodel, wall removal, deck addition, new bathroom.
4362 23rd Street 9/10: $1,295,000 = 24% drop from 2008 @ $1,700,000
4214 26th Street 11/10: $1,370,000 = 12% drop from 2007 @ $1,553,000
1420 Douglass 9/10: $1,440,000 = 26% drop from 2007 @ $1,945,000
Where's the boom?
Posted by: Michael at January 17, 2011 6:41 PM
Owners of real estate in SF get fliers which mention "over asking" and sales prices and the like, all the time. They're deluged by those things. Also, it's not uncommon for people who own in areas to call brokerages or their realtors to keep tabs on what things for sale in the neighborhood are doing. So once again you have me thinking you're not really an owner in SF, AT.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at January 17, 2011 7:03 PM
And I mean, here you are telling everybody you bought at a good time and are doing fine thank you very much. Yet all this vitriol at realtors on a SF RE website all the time? It doesn't add up. Why bother? Plus I mean, do you think nobody's taking notes when you say things that show you don't know who pays whom in a typical SF RE transaction? Or every area gets spun into "Well a /1 at the Beacon dah dah dah" etc? Sorry man. Not buying it. ANd ease off the automatic writing too. You actually have some decent things to say. When you think.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at January 17, 2011 7:07 PM
For those of you actually curious about this property, it is owned by the former CEO of the now-defunct PlanetOut, Karen Magee. Before its sudden demise,PlanetOut was the major national media and entertainment conglomerate serving the GLBT community (the Advocate, gay.com, RSVP cruises and the like). According to a neighbor, Magee has been living on the East Coast and the property has been vacant for awhile.
Posted by: sanfrantim at January 22, 2011 5:41 PM
@sftim, what exactly does that have to do with the property? congrats on demonstrating your most excellent google skills to invade someones privacy!
Posted by: eddy at January 22, 2011 5:48 PM
@eddy - What does who lives in a house and why they possibly moved have to do with a property? Well if you live on this planet I can think of a few reasons why these things are relevant - including human interest and financial motivation.
Come back down to earth will ya?
Posted by: jaha at January 22, 2011 7:36 PM
yeah I enjoyed that little titbit. And don't really see what thebig deal is. I see similar stuff in newspapers all the time.
Posted by: alazyman at January 23, 2011 2:41 PM
The last sentence had some speculatative value. The rest Is not relevant. Not a fan of calling out individual home owners unless it is relavant to the story. Even then it is a fine fine line.
Posted by: eddy at January 23, 2011 11:13 PM
a fine line? I saw this place at an open house and the realtor was very forthcoming about the owners.
Also, all of this is easily accessible public info. sf.Blockshopper.com publishes the owner name, occupation and address of various home purchases every single day. Me thinks the poster doth protest too much.
Posted by: mjanne at January 24, 2011 12:20 AM
If the Realtor is giving out homeowner name, former occupations and current resident status of the owner than I guess that is a separate matter. I'd fire them. I think what Blockshopper does is inappropriate.
Posted by: eddy at January 24, 2011 9:15 AM
Yea, i am bemused by the objection too. If the CEO of Google or Twitter (or a certain SF Giant) owned a home in the nabe, people would be curious. PlanetOut, while not Google, was a very big deal in its time for those in the GLBT community. And, the owner has taken no effort to hide it; I confirmed the ownership on propertyshark. No privacy invasion here.
Posted by: sanfrantim at January 24, 2011 7:43 PM
"If the CEO of Google or Twitter (or a certain SF Giant) owned a home in the nabe, people would be curious."
Twitter CEO's house in the nabe:
Posted by: Michael at January 24, 2011 8:43 PM
OK, you win.
Posted by: eddy at January 25, 2011 9:11 AM