2605 California (Image Source: MapJack.com)
As we wrote in October:

Purchased for $2,940,000 in July 2005, the remodeled Victorian at 2605 California returned to the market asking $3,495,000 in July 2008. Since then the listing has been reduced, delisted, relisted, withdrawn, listed, delisted, relisted, withdrawn, listed, reduced, delisted, relisted, and last withdrawn a month ago.

Yesterday, the single-family home “situated in the HOT Upper Fillmore corridor” was listed anew once again, this time “priced to sell!!” at $2,795,000. Yes, double exclamation points. And yes, with an official “one day” on the market according to industry reports.

As a plugged-in tipster notes, it would appear it’s the publisher of the Chronicle that’s been trying to sell, a tidbit that likely won’t make it in to print.

The sale of 2605 California closed escrow yesterday with a reported contract price of $2,665,000 or 9 percent ($275,000) below its 2005 purchase price after which the 4,013 square foot home was “substantially upgraded.”
And yes, we did our best to channel the Chronicle for our headline as they might not cover this particular sale.
Not Fit (For Some) To Print [SocketSite]

5 thoughts on “Chronicle Publisher Sells Below 2005 Price In Pacific Heights”
  1. well clearly upper filmore is not part of the ‘real sf’ making this place excempt for the ‘prestige index’.

  2. What’s funny is that a $450K plus loss on a nearly 6 year hold is now so commonplace, that it doesn’t even raise any eyebrows.

  3. This place could lose another few 100k over the next 6 years. But I contend, as I did on the original thread, that this is a great outcome / comp for this Lower Pac Heights Townhouse.
    It gets lost in the incorrect assumption that housing has steadily risen over the past 10 years in SF, that SF has really had its ups/downs with respect to RE. This makes the assertion that this place sold for 6% less than its 2005 price sort of cataclysmic. Take 2312 Gough for example. Sold for $3M in 2000. And then it sold for $2.6 in 2004. The double bubble has been discussed here, etc.. but it makes these Year to Year comparisons sort of odd. Not irrelevant, just quirky.

  4. I think the key difference with this last RE bubble, vs the dot-com bubble, is that loan practices (zero-down & Option ARM) and pricing based on large future price increases created a number of positive feedback loops with respect to pricing. i.e. If prices rise greatly then a number of problems will go away, if prices fall then a number of problems will get worse.

  5. “the remodeled Victorian at 2605 California returned to the market asking $3,495,000 in July 2008”
    Bwahahahaha. I’m glad this one took a nice loss. I agree with eddy on this one – the publisher deserved to lose more, and should be very happy with the outcome.

Leave a Reply

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