From the listing for 444 Roosevelt Way up in Corona Heights circa 2008:
This is a Gem, amazing street appeal. [Spanish Mediterranean] in the Monterey Style with sweeping views in best location. Lovely details, large rooms and wonderful light…beamed ceilings, step out balcony…Updated kitchen, stainless steel applicances and sep. breakfast room with french doors to patio/gardens…A+ property!
Listed for $1,995,000 it sold for $2,100,000 that February with permits to excavate, expand, and remodel issued in 2010.
From the listing today: “Development Opportunity with Fabulous Potential…gutted on the inside” and asking $1,750,000. No word on why the sellers have decided not to realize the fabulous potential, and instead a potentially fabulous loss, for themselves.
And yes, the green house next door has since been repainted.
∙ Listing: 444 Roosevelt Way (4/3) 2,558 sqft – $1,750,000 [MLS]
∙ The Green Is Gone At 438 Roosevelt [SocketSite]
So presumably the “lovely details” and “beamed ceilings” are gone now, soon to be replaced by yet another SF Dwellbox.
Yes we need “gutted” defined. The listing photos include one of an intact room. Are there even floors, interior walls?
An architecture firm I once worked for defined “demolition” as something that often involved dynamite. Everything else was “selective removal”.
For a house that has “sweeping views” it is odd that the listing only includes a single peephole view shot.
Note that the listing doesn’t specify exactly what the “Fabulous Potential” entails. Potential to drain your bank account and wits perhaps?
My guess would be that they started on an extensive remodel (probably a “dwellbox”, as Curious Geo says above) and then ran out of money for one reason or another.
It may have had something to do with the sea of price reductions, leading them to finally understand their folly.
From Redfin: in the last week, 63 sales, 111 price reductions. 213 new listings.
I’d give up too.
Why whould anybody pay attention to your words now, Tipster, as opposed to the other 500 times you’ve tried to paint this pretty resilient market as an annihilation? This house is a pretty extreme case and you know that all too well. Again. Pick your spots and knock it off with the Uzi.
Maybe because I provide actual facts?
Yeah like when you tell everybody how you know an anonymous guy and stuff? Yeah dude. Real compelling.
No, like when I point out that price reductions have surpassed sales.
I realize it’s not as much fun as ad hominem attacks, but knowing that price reductions have surpassed sales informs people about real information about the real estate market.
Trying to distract people from the fact that price reductions have surpassed sales, using all sorts of transparent techniques, does not really keep people from knowing that price reductions have now surpassed sales.
And since I cited my source that price reductions have surpassed sales, if people doubt that price reductions have surpassed sales, they can look up for themselves whether price reductions have surpassed sales and make up their own minds whether price reductions have surpassed sales.
A troubling event, IMHO.
facts with no context…. can you tell us if price reductions have surpassed sales in the past?
I find it to be meaningless. In one week 63 properties have sold in San Francisco – i see 93 on the most recent 7 day period on the MLS – so I doubt you right off the bat.
But here we are moving into the slow season…. and low and behold, sellers who have yet to sell are price reducing, and coming off a holiday week there were fewer sales. wow, who could have guessed the result during this particular one week period.
facts don’t equal conclusions. the world appears flat from where i stand – fact. the world isn’t flat – fact. go figure.
meanwhile the owner of this home appears to have put down $1 million in cash when he purchased. funny, cause i’ve heard numerous times on this site how people don’t put down that kind of money
“the owner of this home appears to have put down $1 million in cash when he purchased….”
That’s great. Sounds like he can afford the more than $500k he’s about to lose!
i’m glad that makes you happy El B. May you have an equally happy weekend – with luck the entire financial system will cave in again. Here’s to hoping.
hangemhi wrote:
Yep. And I’ve heard an equally numerous number of times from commenters on this site about how people who buy a $1 million+ home don’t need financing.
I’m not trying to distract anybody from anything, Tipster. You’re the one telling a story here. You leapt from this thread’s anchor, an odd scheme which was buying a 2.1M fixer in a neighborhood that maybe supports 3M at most, to a snapshot of this week’s market as if they are moving lockstep. And then, of course you trying to portray yourself as an altruist is amusing. You’re a pedant, and you try to talk the market down because you think you might buy someday. But you won’t, and fence sitters existed long before fence sitters began blogging. There’s no escaping that definition after the body of work you’ve put in. So embrace it. But spare me the faux righteous indignation. You’ve told so many whoppers on here it’s hilarious.
An earlier listing for this house listed it as 444/446 Roosevelt Way and stated “Designed as a house and built as two legal units” The Chron listing in 1/27/08 “legal two units”. Redfin shows a “multi-family (2-4unit). So, if the new buyer builds only a private home is he taking away city housing stock and needs approval to convert the small unit into the house or must a two unit building be built? Seems like something is going on here, but what do I know>?
“And I’ve heard an equally numerous number of times from commenters on this site about how people who buy a $1 million+ home don’t need financing.”
Yes, this seems to be the operative point because people in SF are either dotcom millionaires, rich foreigners (especially Chinese), or trustafarians or otherwise supported by the Bank of Mom and Dad. Certainly no one who would bomb out on a remodeling project would buy in SF.
“with luck the entire financial system will cave in again. Here’s to hoping.”
Quit with the hyperbole. Banksters looking for a handout does not mean the financial system was ever going to cave in. There was never a real run on any commercial bank, and it was only the casino-style ungrateful incompetent investment bankers who lied so that we could socialize their losses. We’re still bailing these jokers out by punishing savers.
anon.ed, hangemhi…..BULLSEYE!
Herb – If the second unit is a small studio I wonder if a family could buy this while never renting out the studio. Having separate guest quarters like this is pretty sweet if you have frequent visitors. And it would an asset if you had a teenager in the house. Though it might be harder to get that teenager to fly from the nest.
Here are the May MLS sales figures — down about 15%:
http://www.rereport.com/sf/index.html
“Resilient” is the new RE word for “sh**ty but not quite as sh**ty as Antioch.”
“You’ve told so many whoppres on here its hilarious”
This from a realtor who changes his name here every six months when he gets called on his baloney.
The May YOY disparity has been explained several times on here. It was down to the double tax credit May 2010 presented. The other months are quite good YoY for 2011. As you know, or should know by now. I change my name because certain duckbills can’t handle civility, and it becomes a bore. Also because “Geoff the Realtor” was awesome.
Well, I had the plans for this a few weeks back when I was lowballing it. It will still be 2 units, but with an interior door between the lower bedrooms and the family room. That will cost it in resale. There are 2 beds and baths up, the views are okay, and there isn’t really a yard. It isn’t worth much more finished than the 2.1 he payed. It won’t be dwellified, the living and dining rooms are intact plus they are open to the kitchen.
Well, I had the plans for this a few weeks back when I was lowballing it. It will still be 2 units, but with an interior door between the lower bedrooms and the family room. That will cost it in resale. There are 2 beds and baths up, the views are okay, and there isn’t really a yard. It isn’t worth much more finished than the 2.1 he payed. It won’t be dwellified, the living and dining rooms are intact plus they are open to the kitchen.
“Yep. And I’ve heard an equally numerous number of times from commenters on this site about how people who buy a $1 million+ home don’t need financing.”
You’ve also heard that a 1.1M mortgage is the max basis for deductions. Poor decision aside, that’s what was utilized in this case. Not sure if you’re aware of this but people who have money occasionally like tax deductions too.
I (heart) tipster and sfrenegade!
“amazing street appeal” — really? This is one ugly looking house. I see the bits of Mediterranean detail, but they seem to have been a bunch of random pieces thrown against the front of the house while still wet.
I love fluj’s new line: “resilient”. A.T. hit the nail on the head – “resilient” can mean anything from “in the last throes of death” to “this is not Japan circa 1990.”
That line actually came from Eddy. But typically uninteresting words from you, nonetheless.
“You’ve also heard that a 1.1M mortgage is the max basis for deductions. Poor decision aside, that’s what was utilized in this case. Not sure if you’re aware of this but people who have money occasionally like tax deductions too.”
Paying 5% in interest to save maybe 1.5% in interest. Yes I’ve heard of that, but it’s already incorporated into the purchase price, which would be lower if not for the mortgage interest deduction.
“It was down to the double tax credit May 2010 presented.”
Pshaw, tax credits have no effects in the Real SF — see my 6/10 4:51PM comment above.
Feel free to substitute snarky in jokes for worthwhile discussion in another direction, thanks.
Now asking $1,500,000