1825 Webster
As we wrote this past May:

Purchased for $1,500,000 in June 2006 with two loans and $225,000 down, a year later a third mortgage for $200,000 was added to the property at 1825 Webster.

Taken back by the bank with no bidders at $1,242,890 this past March, the “prime” Lower Pacific Heights single-family home is now back on the market and listed for $999,900.

Yesterday, the sale of 1825 Webster closed escrow with a reported contract price of $835,000. That’s $665,000 (44 percent) below its 2006 sale price which hopefully was never used as a comp (but would have been included in average and median price reports).
From $225,000 To $25,000 “Down” And Bank-Owned At 1825 Webster [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by lol

    Quite a hit. Congrats to the buyer!
    Looking at tax assessments, it went from almost 1.6M to 1.25M in 2010. The new buyer will have to ask the city to take another haircut.

  2. Posted by FormerAptBroker

    Does anyone know the loan balance due at the time the property was taking back by the bank?
    This might be another “Sells for half what was owed” property…
    [Editor’s Note: Just under $1.6 million we do believe.]

  3. Posted by eddy

    Not sure how I missed the May posting. I saw this home in 2006 and it was beyond a joke. How they every closed this deal for $1.5 is beyond me. I’m not sure it was an arms length transaction based on some internet searching. The June 2006 sale data on blockshopper has the buyer/seller information all confusing and the last sale there has the buyer/seller listed at what appears to be the couple occupying the space. Could just be data error or whatever; but let’s all be clear here for a moment: This home was never worth $1.5M and it’s not clear that its worth $835k today. Nevertheless, the records do show that this is what was paid for this home. There may be some facebook money in here as well which could account for some of the loony-toons nature of this transaction. But I’m highly suspicious. Good luck and godspeed to the new buyer.

  4. Posted by Average Joe

    ^^^eddy: how was it a joke? what specifically about this property?

  5. Posted by eddy

    Sorry for being vague with the joke comment, I guess you weren’t ‘amused’. It was a joke in so far as it had no real comps to support the price per sq ft and there were far better buys in LPH (and PH) at the time for bigger homes, better located, and better quality. 1815 Jackson sold in June of 2006 for 1650 sq ft @ $1.16m. The same home just also sold last year for $1.15M. Better home, better price, better investment over roughly the same period. So, yes, this 1825 home was laughable at its price in 2006.

  6. Posted by inclinejj

    wait! Real Estate goes down in value?
    Did I miss that memo?

  7. Posted by tipster

    Oh geez, eddy, 1815 Jackson is a ridiculous comparison.
    This place is a completely detached SFR *one flat block* from Fillmore street shopping and two blocks from Japantown. In contrast, 1815 Jackson was a badly out of date condo (since redone – I guess you “forgot” to mention that in your price update) sitting between Franklin and Gough and is about 6 more hilly (though not steep) blocks from the tip of Union street shopping, with another three blocks to go to anything decent. A lot of people would have preferred this place to that one by a mile.
    It was 2006, and insanity (and free money) was raging. SFRs in this price range anywhere near Fillmore street were a rare commodity. This was a perfectly reasonable price in 2006. You conveniently forget how crazy it really was. Money was free, housing prices were going to go up forever and you didn’t even need to pay the interest before refinancing at an even higher price.
    I’ll agree with one thing: this place will not get its 2011 price when it gets resold in a few years. But then again, nothing else will either.

  8. Posted by [anon.ed]

    “this place will not get its 2011 price when it gets resold in a few years”
    Well keep an eye on it, then. It’s going to get flipped, and probably just by legalizing the lower rooms.
    LOL, Tipster. You’re ruining what should be your own moments in the sun by going overboard. It’s more likely to 1.25 – 1.3 or so in a year than it is to resell for less than 835K.

  9. Posted by A.T.

    $1.5 million for this place in 2006 actually made sense in the prevailing free-money logic. If sh**ty D9 and D10 places were fetching a million then, which they were, then a perfectly fine SFR just a couple blocks from “prime” Pac Heights was certainly worth 50% more. But now that the sh**ty D9 and D10 places are selling at a 40+% discount, so is this. The relative values hold, just at a far lower absolute level.
    And of course this place was used as a comp to convince others to pay $2mm for places that are now worth $1.5mm. It’s all inter-related.

  10. Posted by eddy

    You guys are funny. The jackson st comp is bigger square footage, better located and even without the remodel is a perfectly fine comp. 1825 Webster was overpriced. I physically saw this place in 2006 so I’m not making this up. I was in the market and actively looking; and I also looked at Jackson. It would be one thing if Webster had a yard or anything; but give me a break. Condo’s are perfectly fine as a comp here. $1.5 never made sense on this home. 2247 Webster(SFH) sold in 2008 for $1.9 so granted a bit more money; but a far superior location and the market increased from 06-08 if I’m not mistaken. There were far better buys. 3578 Jackson, 2003 Broadway, 3014-16 Pierce and I’m not even researching this much; or looking elsewhere in LPH where I’m sure there would be many other comps highlighting why this place is a joke.
    Again, $1500/psf for this place was insane. Anyone that claims that this was the market better start coming up with some comps. I’ll check back later to see what you come up with.

  11. Posted by [anon.ed]

    This place took 69 days to sell in 2006. Only 20 6C SFR sales ocurred the entire calendar year, and it was one of the last market’s best years. Everybody looked at this, and nearly everybody passed. The seller held out for his one buyer, and he got lucky.

  12. Posted by eddy

    I am more than happy to be proven wrong but what were the average $/psf for some of those other 6C SFHs in 2006. Anything even close to $1500/psf?

  13. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Not even close. Not even at the $936 per square foot mark (for 1602 sq ft) which is what the property was advertised at the last time around. In 2006 the average for SFRs in 6C was $767 psqft.

  14. Posted by eddy

    Thank you a.ed. I really don’t mind being proven wrong and have been in the past. Maybe someone else can make a case.
    The trolling logic on here is starting to get old. Money wasn’t free, not everyone thought housing was going up forever, the D9/D10 logic is flawed and the most extreme examples cited there are usually fraud; this place wasn’t really used as a comp and it didn’t cause every other house in LPH to trade even higher. The market is pretty efficient and this place was largely ignored by all; including the 2006 buyer who soon saw the error of their ways and just checked out.
    I’m surprised it fetched $835k. Maybe someone will build up and blow it out; but it’s a risky project.

  15. Posted by tipster

    Oh spare us with your backpeddling PPSFT arguments. I’m sure the real estate broker who bought it in 2006 had the idea that he could build up too, so ppsft of the existing building wasn’t the sole consideration.
    This place has no attached neighbors, unlike the “average” house, and sits mid block between the two busy streets that keep the “average” house, that sits much closer to, or even ON, those busy streets in that district far lower and pulls down “average” prices.
    With the development potential, no neighbors in any direction for 30 feet, and the proximity to Fillmore street, and sitting mid block, it’s a unique property with all its faults. 20% over the average, which includes homes on Bush street and Pine street freeways, is wholly unsurprising with the ability to build up.
    And trust me, eddy, after it sold, the real estate agents trumpeted its price far and wide to anyone coming to an open house within a mile.

  16. Posted by eddy

    A good tactic when proven wrong is to escalate the tone; well played, sir.
    And who is back peddling? Nothing quiet about this location as it feeds right off the 4 lane Webster St thoroughfare, and what development potential does this really have at such a high starting price?
    Feel free to discount my comps and my direct experience with this place; or try to “average” it down. Here are a few more SFH data points
    2432 Pine @ $1.3 in 2007
    2967 Pine @ 1.5 in 2006
    Actually, the 2967 Pine St might be the best comp here although I can’t find the sq/ft from 2006. It was majorly redone and flipped this year for $3M. 2432 was also flipped last year for $2m. I trust the comps and ignore ones don’t make sense, like this one.
    Post some comps that prove your point, please.

  17. Posted by Ned Deal

    Why does Case Schiller say SF is down 38% from the peak, while both Trulia and Zillow put it at around 18-19%? This seems an awfully large discrepancy.

  18. Posted by Rillion

    Could be due to a difference in what each considers “SF”.

Add a Comment

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