As we first wrote about 110 Avila when listed for $2,795,000 this past May:
Last remodeled in 2007 and recently re-roofed, a year ago 110 Avila hit the market in the Marina listed for $2,795,000. It sold for $2,550,000 ($877 per square foot) last June.
Three bedrooms, three and one-half baths, a high-end kitchen and “outdoor spaces galore” with Golden Gate Bridge tower views from its roof deck.
The sale of the “magnificent Mediterranean” single-family Marina District home closed escrow yesterday with a reported contract price of $2,475,000, down 3 percent ($75,000) on a year-over-year and apples-to-apples basis.
∙ Apples-To-Apples And Year-Over-Year At 110 Avila [SocketSite]
total rent equivalent spent by the owners over the past year: ~$20K/month.
6 Sales in 11 years. WTF. One thing is for sure that this place certainly seems to sell fast and owners have no shame in showing their pride of ownership. The kitchen does seem massivly upgraded from the 2005 sale. The out of escrow right to escrow tactic is a great negotiating tactic in a weak market. This is a great apple comp.
Here are the prior sales:
05/25/2000 $1,600,000 DOM 35
Elegant 3 Level House On 1 Of The Marina’s Most Charming & Quiet Blocks. Completely Renovated…
08/01/2001 $1,539,000 DOM 41
This 3 Lvl Hm Is In Move-in Cond. Gourmet Kit, Grt Period Details, Dk In Rear Leading To Yd…
04/22/2004 $2,200,000 DOM 63
Flawless restoration of this three level Mediterranean…
02/22/2005 $2,295,000 DOM 100
Fully remodeled 3 level Mediterranean home on one of the neighborhood’s most sought after blocks…
06/15/2010 $2,550,000 DOM 40
Stunning 3 level Mediterranean home on one of neighborhood’s most sought after blocks…
07/05/2011 $2,475,000 DOM 46
Welcome to 110 Avila! This magnificent Mediterranean home spans three levels & is located just off of Chestnut St…
We looked at this place when it was on the market last year and I was shocked when it sold for $2.5 million. People will pay a crazy premium to live on Avila
I’ll bet the former owner was relieved that she bought after “the worst was over” and just before she lost $200,000 on the sale, including closing costs, loan fees, transfer tax, realtor fees, etc.
If you had bought just about any similar sized home in any other part of the country, you’d be hard pressed to lose that kind of money in one year. And yet we delude ourselves into thinking our market is “resilient” because it was “only” down 3%.
So I guess SF *is* “different” after all.
And if the owner had held for ten years and then sold for the same price, they still would have lost the same $200,000. So a relatively tiny percentage loss can still result in a massive dollar amounts lost. Ten petty nice vacations for an entire family down the tubes.
What’s fun to note is that not everyone lost money: the realtors on both ends, always cheerleading for people to buy houses, made about as much as the owner lost! You can see why their slogan was “Now is a good time to buy and sell real estate”, because they always make a lot of money, regardless of your outcome, of which they couldn’t care less!
tipster,
Pretty thin single straw to grasp at today now is it?
Seriously, I don’t get the multiple resales of some of these places. Either some people like their Realtors well fed and clothed, or there are “trophy” homes that fail to become real roots for their purchasers. Of course you’ve got unforeseeable circumstances, but 6 sales in 11 years?
…’contract price of $2,475,000, down 3 percent ($75,000)’?? How do they get approve for a 3% down payment loan these days? Which bank?
Katebear,
I hope that is an attempt at humor. The down 3 percent is in reference to the current sales price being 3 percent below last year’s sales price.
tipster – well said. now no one ever has to pay any more attention to anything you say because you’ve exposed yourself for the true hater that you are.
oh, and your 10 year hold statement??? You mean like if the 2000 buyer sold in 2010 or the 2001 buyer sold this year. yeah, that would have been stupid.
I’m waiting for 1865 Greenwich to close. This will be a good apple for a 10 year hold of a smallish unimproved SFH in Cow Hallow with lots of potential (see 1813 Greenwich). Last sold for $735k in 2001 and recently listed @ $948k. Went into contract in 15 days. This would be a ~29% increase in value over 10 years if it closes at 948k. I think it could close higher.
1865 greenwich needs to be torn down. odd way to track a 10 year apple especially since it appears to have been bought by an owner occupier or landlord, and most likely now will be purchased by a developer
Not to take yet another thread off course, but 1865 will almost certainly be torn down. I’m not really sure how they received permission to tear down 1813 and that was actually a pretty serviceable home that sold for $1.6ish. But that home basically flew off the market and now is generating 3.5x the tax revenue of the prior home. So I suspect we may actually see more of these fixer homes get the green light over time. But the 10 year hold of this property will give a very good picture of how the intrinsic market has changed. Only the comp price will be relevant here. One could wax poetic about how the increase in value combined with the likely 2-4k rent price of this place over 10 years (~360k) netted the owner a massive gain on a margin-based investment; but that’s not the point really. You could also say they left 500k on the table by not selling in 2006/7 if you think this is a comp of 1813. The only real data point of value is how this home has increased in value over 10 years. Interestingly, it’s not really the home that appreciated here. It’s the value of the opportunity that has changed here mostly.
Here is another similar apple:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/63-20th-Ave-94121/home/2010374
Just sold for $165,000 less than the sale price in May 2009 at the “bottom” (first listed just a few months after that sale — odd). Quite a nice area and a nice place.
Something odd about the public records sale of this 20th ave home in that the transaction data for both the 2002 and the 2009 sale is May 7th? And the rapid re-listing on MLS from the 2009 sale is also odd. Who knows. But it is up over its 2002 price of $2.35M in any event. We’re a long way from 1996 pricing. The 1990 sale price of 725k is never coming back folks.
For the record, can we all be consistent and specify when was the bottom or at least state as much? AT, you’re on the record for 5/09 🙂
Have a good weekend folks.
PS: The 1865 Greenwhich listing I noted above fell out of escrow. I posted it on the 1813 thread I think.