July 25, 2011
Apples-To-Apples-To-Apples-To-Apples 1470 Noe Closes Down
As plugged-in people know, Moises Alou paid $1,875,000 for the rebuilt house at 1470 Noe in March 2005 and sold it for $1,865,000 in January 2007. Two years after that the contemporary Noe home traded for $1,850,000 in March 2009.
And yes, 1470 Noe is now back on the market two years later and listed for $1,849,000.
Assuming a sale at asking, approximately $370,000 worth of brokerage commissions will have been generated from buying and selling 1470 Noe over the past six years (while the value of 1470 Noe itself would be $26,000 less).
The sale of 1470 Noe closed escrow on Friday with a reported contract price of $1,800,000. Make that $369,500 in commissions paid over the past six years while the value of the Noe home has fallen $75,000 (4 percent), down $50,000 (3 percent) since 2009.
∙ Apples To Apples To Apples To Apples At 1470 Noe [SocketSite]
∙ Another On Noe (1470 Noe Street) [SocketSite]
∙ 1470 Noe Closes For 100% Of Asking (But $25,000 Less Than In 2005) [SocketSite]
∙ 1470 Noe Steps Back Up To The Plate (And A Plugged-In Peek Inside) [SocketSite]
First Published: July 25, 2011 2:45 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Maybe this house is being picky and trying out residents one after another until it finds the right one...
Posted by: lol at July 25, 2011 3:00 PM
See you in 2013!
Posted by: Legacy Dude at July 25, 2011 4:17 PM
So we can now officially add in the "commissions paid" theme to the list of reasons why buying in San Francisco is a disaster. Let's add in all those garbage collection fees, transfer taxes, annual tips to the mailman as well. But -4% from 2005 to 2011 during the worst housing calamity in our generation. Yikes. And this is an ugly home with low street / curb appeal and questionable interior design elements. It's going to take more convincing data than this change the collective mindset.
Anyone know what the "VRBO vs Buy" (tm) would be on this place at 600 per night @ 50% occupancy would net out? ;)
Posted by: eddy at July 25, 2011 5:59 PM
I thought March 2009 was supposed to be the very bottom.
Buying at the "bottom" still cost them at least $150K when commissions, transfer tax, loan fees, etc are considered. It may "only" be X%, but $150K is real money. For a two year hold or a ten year hold, it's a lot of money.
Anyone buying expecting housing prices to remain approximately flat should be forewarned: you're still going to lose a lot of money, even in a so called flat market.
Posted by: tipster at July 25, 2011 6:10 PM
Why did it take you 3 hours to deliver your lesson, Professor Tipster? For a second there you were flirting with disappointing the imaginary student body you so love to instruct.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at July 25, 2011 6:33 PM
glad the president is providing his unique and relevant lectures
Posted by: studentbodypresident at July 25, 2011 6:45 PM
431 Jersey in Noe Valley.
Sold July 11, 2002 $706,000
Listed Jun 09, 2011 $1,250,000
Sold July 20, 2011 $1,450,000
$1115 psf and 200K over asking & 22 days on the market.
Move along. Nothing to see here.
Hat tip to sflit.
Posted by: Eddy at July 25, 2011 8:21 PM
431 Jersey does not appear to be an apple. Permits pulled and completed for various projects after 2002, including a kitchen remodel and adding a 1/2 bath. Also, is it really 1300 sq ft? It looks larger.
I'm not arguing the underlying point that nice places are in short supply and appear to be flying off the shelves in Noe. But I don't think the 2002/2011 comparison is valid, and I question the $/sf info.
Posted by: RenterAgain at July 25, 2011 8:56 PM
Not ann apple. Doesn't need to be an apple to show that big $/psf is a great outcome.
Posted by: Eddy at July 25, 2011 11:07 PM
Got to limber up those fingers, Eddy, before hitting the keyboard :)
Posted by: Oceangoer at July 25, 2011 11:54 PM
Eddy. Oh, I see. So suppose a seller entered advanced dementia during the period in which their home was on the market and decided that a rare collectible chandelier, hand-formed by a now famous pre-WWI Italian artisan out of platinum, was an appurtenance and should sell with the home, which happened to be a shotgun earthquake shack in Bernal that would normally sell for $300k.
If that home sold for "big $/psf" (of course the earthquake shack was only 530 sf²) and $50k over asking would you post a sarcastic "Move along. Nothing to see here" comment and call it "a great outcome"?
Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at July 25, 2011 11:55 PM
"Why did it take you 3 hours to deliver your lesson, Professor Tipster? For a second there you were flirting with disappointing the imaginary student body you so love to instruct."
Only took you 23 mins. to post your contentless snark. BTW, how to you sell RE when you're on 24-hour tipster watch?
Posted by: ForgotMyScreenName at July 26, 2011 8:19 AM
Suppose a property, oh I don't know, perhaps one on Noe street, was occupied by three different owners varying in the wear and tear they caused. Suppose it was sold by several different owners during a 6/12 year span. Suppose at least one or two pretty strongly personal paint colors were chosen, original bedroom carpets always kept, and that the 2003-2004 construction was beginning to look just a bit "late '90s." Not hard to imagine such a case for an "apple." Indeed, just look at the photos.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at July 26, 2011 8:22 AM
Only 23 minutes? Why, I was hitting refresh for the entire 3 hours. THank you very much.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at July 26, 2011 8:24 AM
The paint and carpet are easy cheap fixes. The exterior slipping into nostalgia land however is not. Good point. So in addition to new condo smell we also have trendy facade sparkle that will quickly fade.
If this facade survives another three decades it will become "classic" and endure without fading further. See streamline deco and midcentury mod both if which were disdained soon after they were trendy only to develop a cult following many decades later.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at July 26, 2011 8:47 AM
"431 Jersey in Noe Valley."
Did that house always have a garage?
Posted by: sfrenegade at July 26, 2011 9:26 AM
@Brahma, I read your comment 3 times and still have no idea what point you are trying to make. I'm all for a little fun and banter but what are you talking about, or am I missing some contextual reference? This isn't antiques roadshow here that we're talking about where there are mysterious values and intrigue; it's san francisco real estate and comps.
Posted by: eddy at July 26, 2011 9:39 AM
This mess of a remodel will become "classic"? It looks like someone randomly dropped a prefab unit on top of an existing home. Plus there is a really weird split level in between the two main levels of the home -- that's why there's that strange step-down suspended metal terrace. This place is just gross.
Posted by: Footie at July 26, 2011 10:02 AM
eddy, yes we agree that it is san francisco real estate and comps. The point I was trying to make is that the context of the sale matters. We aren't discussing a sale of one of three hundred identical tract homes in the Inland Empire here.
The fact is that (assuming RenterAgain is correct)permits were pulled and completed for various projects since the last sale, "including a kitchen remodel and adding a 1/2 bath" would affect the selling price and whether or not it was over asking, just as a collectible chandelier's presence in a home on the market would affect the selling price for a small and otherwise unnoteworthy home in Bernal. And if it went significantly over asking, we really couldn't necessarily conclude anything about "big dollars per square foot" still potentially being in play or what have you.
The selling price in either case was probably about the improvements. The happy days of > $1,100 per ft.² are probably not here again.
Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at July 26, 2011 10:52 AM
@bhrama, I think you're focusing too much on the 2002 sale. Adam always disclaims everything with median argument from 2006; and I don't really dispute the general concept. What gets lost is that there is a very gradual, yet persistent, trend in SF where all homes are getting improved and brought to a new standard. And homes that are at the new standard are flying off the shelf and are doing so with impressive comps. So the Jersey property is simply a case where the home traded well above the neighborhood median; and did so in only 22 days (listing to sold) and with competition (over asking). I'm not suggesting we're back to $1100/psf days across the board; (I'm not even sure this place is only 1300sf) but between 1470 Noe losing 4% and Jersey literally flying off the market, it certainly paints an interesting, dare I say positive, picture.
I still largely hold onto my thesis that the markets will slide sideways withing a +/- 1-3% range over the next few years, but really no one really knows. It's not like 2006 where there was obviously something wrong with the markets and something bad was going to happen. And there was something wrong (liar loans, neg-am,IO only, no doc, outright fraud, etc.), and something bad did happen (big price drops across the board). But the perma bears out there calling for 1996 pricing and screaming about being a fool for buying now are potentially very wrong and shilling out bad advice. Of course, buying for less than 5 years is almost always a bad move and renting in SF is probably not a bad idea if you have relative uncertainty in your 5 year situation.
Posted by: eddy at July 26, 2011 11:49 AM
The fool who bought this place is out $150K. I wouldn't call advice, telling him not to buy, bad.
Posted by: tipster at July 26, 2011 12:55 PM
"The fool who bought this place"
Oh cool it.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at July 26, 2011 1:12 PM
He was baited a bit there in all fairness. But again, buying and selling over such a short period is actually a foolish thing to do.
Posted by: eddy at July 26, 2011 2:06 PM