January 21, 2011
Now Asking 10 Percent Less Green For A Green Mission Apple
As we wrote just four months ago:
New construction in 2007 featuring siding from reclaimed olive oil barrels, hardwood floors from reclaimed mine timbers, and bathrooms with Zuma tubs and Duravit sinks, 3280 Mission Street #D was listed for $1,399,000 that July and sold for $1,450,000.
It’s now three years later, the Valencia Streetscape Improvement Project has been completed, and the three-bedroom atop 3280 22nd Street has returned to the market asking $1,550,000.
Withdrawn from the MLS in December, yesterday the green apple to be returned to the market listed for $1,395,000 and with just "one" day on the market and no reductions in the eyes of those friendly neighborhood trends reports.
UPDATE: A plugged-in reader adds a "very crude and grainy picture...taken from 3280 22nd street looking out at the neighbors [in 2007]. clearly, the neighbors were not happy about the new development":
Rough translation: "Enough of the rich people and their condos."
∙ Listing: 3280 22nd Street #D (3/2) 1,808 sqft - $1,395,000 [MLS]
∙ Going Green In The Mission (3280 22nd St.): Prices/Additional Details [SocketSite]
∙ A Green Apple To Be Atop 3280 22nd Street (#D) [SocketSite]
First Published: January 21, 2011 12:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
SocketSite certainly drives into the ground the looseness and unreliablity of the "days on market" statistics. That's all well and good, but I don't think I've ever seen what the desired counter-proposal would be if SocketSite had it's way.
If I list something for a day, take it off the market for 5 years, then list it again, should that be "5 years on the market"? What about 1 year? What about 6 months? Where should the line be drawn?
Perhaps we need a different stat, such as "total number of days that it's been listed over the past year"? Perhaps that would be more accurate.
Posted by: jus_wunderin at January 21, 2011 8:20 AM
Thinking about it further, perhaps the most accurate statistic would be something like "number of days on the market in the past year at this price".
Might need a set of such numbers for each price it was listed at over the past year (or whatever timeframe is deemed appropriate). Probably too complicated, though.
Posted by: jus_wunderin at January 21, 2011 8:28 AM
Adding to what jus_wunderin had to write...other cities in the U.S. don't even give a shit about days on market. In NYC a property stays on the market until it sells. A person who is ready to actually negotiate the price will come along, make an offer and then work on getting it at the price they want. If it doesn't happen, they go on looking. That process itself can take a very long "days IN the market". Only in SF do people fail to try to negotiate and care if a property has been sitting on the market. If it has, obviously it doesn't meet every small criteria that someone wants (formal dining room vs an open floor plan...blah, blah, blah). But as well, it means that someone didn't have the chutzpa to actually make an offer, not get pissed off and try to negotiate a fair price. And days on market when it comes to really depressed areas like Florida, Michigan and Nevada is a silly notion all together.
Having been a seller, I know that having a property open every weekend and available to see (in "show" condition -- again something a bit unheard of in other parts of the U.S.) gets tiring and taking a property off the market gives a seller a break.
I think viewing a property's time on the market is an old school "bubble" view. That bubble burst and so should some of the old way of thinking about real estate in San Francisco. Days on market should be a thing of the past.
Posted by: jus_wunderin2 at January 21, 2011 9:10 AM
very crude and grainy picture, but it was taken from 3280 22nd street looking out at the neighbors. clearly, the neighbors were not happy about the new development:
Posted by: garrett at January 21, 2011 9:53 AM
if they had interest in being forthcoming with information, just provide a property history like it is shown on redfin, and even include information that redfin can't show due to "MLS restrictions", i forgot exactly what they were, but something along the lines of "MLS does not allow showing listing prices of withdrawn listings".
Posted by: condoshopper at January 21, 2011 10:02 AM
que coman pasteles!
Posted by: Marie Antoinette at January 21, 2011 10:16 AM
There's no need to change the way DOM works because there's no better number to replace it with.
Instead, new buyers need to be educated about the issues with this number so that when a realtor says, "You need to put in a bid right now! This just came on the market and won't last long!" they know to diligently research the real history of a listing.
Entire books have been written on the psychological tricks salesmen use to move their products. The antidote to this trickery is an educated consumer.
Posted by: diemos at January 21, 2011 10:17 AM
"Days on market should be a thing of the past."
This has been rehashed numerous times in numerous threads. I'd direct you to one of those. Your new suggestion is that it's a bubble view, and I disagree with that. Time on market and price history always gives you an idea of what your negotiating leverage is, and that has nothing to do with bubbles.
It might be that "over asking" and "sold in 5 days" is a bubble mentality, but having lots of information has nothing to do with a bubble.
Posted by: sfrenegade at January 21, 2011 11:14 AM
forget about DOM, I'll tell you what should be disclosed: the full listing history with prices. Unfortunately MLS does not disclose that and has blackmailed Redfin into not disclosing it either, hence the * for past listings. That's borderline mafia behavior. The is NO excuse or legitimate reason for withholding information from a potential buyer when that information can -and almost always does- contribute to the purchase decision process.
As for DoM, the pricing history can not be summarized into a single number, but as they teach in MBA classes, everything can be reduced to a single KPI... for the dumb
Posted by: asiagoSF at January 21, 2011 12:07 PM
I remember when this building went up. Even with the RE bubble going on, my only thought was "this would be a bad place to buy into such an expensive property", mainly because this block is extremely active and loud. Make out Room across the street, Revolution Cafe a few doors down, Latin American right next door, Boogaloos on the corner. No amount of reclaimed wood and European fixtures will make up for the ceaseless vibrancy of this stretch of 22nd St.
Posted by: Schlub at January 21, 2011 5:32 PM
I think that the issue with this place is the lack of elevator. I walked through the first time it was on the market - it has great light and I really liked the open layout of the kitchen/living room area. But....I would get really tired of carrying a kid or a stroller or maybe even groceries up 4 flights of stairs. And if you broke your leg you'd be totally out of luck.
If the neighbors living in subsidized housing are tired of rich people and their condos, they could always move somewhere else...
Posted by: xyz at January 21, 2011 7:20 PM
You peeps so funny!
You'd get tired of carrying your kid or stroller to the penthouse? Haha! This ain't no kiddie show! It's a bachelor pad. Move to Noe!
You'd get tired of the "ceaseless vibrancy on this stretch of 22nd St."?? Honey, people move here just for this vibrancy. See bachelor pad comment just above. Move to Walnut Creek!
You peeps so silly!
Posted by: the other at January 10, 2012 8:45 PM