1022 Powell #3: Loft

Purchased for $1,625,000 in 2006 and returned to the market in 2009 asking $1,395,000, this past October 1022 Powell Street #3 was taken back by the bank.

1022 Powell Street #3: Living

Listed for $1,185,000 this past January, the sale of the two-bedroom Nob Hill condo closed escrow last week with a reported contract price of $1,189,000. Yes, that’s officially “over asking.” Or as those who would rather you didn’t focus on the financials would say, “it’s still expensive” at $862 per square foot, just 27 percent ($436,000) less so.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by lolcat_94123

    What was the HOA?

  2. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    lolcat_94123, it looks like the HOA dues were approx. $300 monthly in 2009.S

  3. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Yeah right. Think the missing 210 sq feet had anything to do with it? Stop falling all over yourself while hurdling to the soapbox, already.
    [Editor’s Note: We think the unit is the exact same size it was when it sold in 2006, 1380 square feet as per the tax records then and now. But if it’s not, please let us know.]

  4. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Yes, advertised 1380 in 2004, 1590 in 2006, and 1380 last year. Yet you’re emphasizing $psqft? And getting sanctimonious about “focus on financials” ??

  5. Posted by anon

    What, editor, you’re accurately reporting that this place just sold for $436,000 less than it sold for in 2006? 27% less than the sale price six years ago? You’re emphasizing facts over misdirection and obfuscation, such as the realtor listings having different square footage for the exact same place? You’ve lost all credibility under realtor-logic! In fact, I’m going to use two question marks to “prove” how absurd your position is??

  6. Posted by [anon.ed]

    ^What your words have to do with the things anybody says isn’t something I’m willing to think about, “anon.”

  7. Posted by tipster

    The upper level family room looks to be about 10×21 and was probably unpermitted.
    The bank sold it this time and probably used the tax records on the listing, though once could clearly see what had happened when you walked in, I suspect. The guy who sold it last time probably added the square footage for the upper level addition. In both sales, the addition was there, and in both cases, the square footage was pretty obviously added.
    1.189/1590=$748 psft. Seems like a good price for a view home.
    Every realtor in town would have told you that the upper level was not part of the listed square footage.

  8. Posted by Z

    Welcome to China Town. Pass

  9. Posted by eddy

    Over Asking!!!
    Seems like an OK deal. I’m still not entirely comfortable with the condo market in San Francisco. It wasn’t great in 2006/7/8/9 and 10/11/12 still seem way too risky. Seems like the guy who visited this place when it was on the market last time and predicted it wouldn’t sell at asking had the best read.
    One question, if this was taken back by the bank and presumably sold by the bank; it is really a fair comp. I mean it did sell for over asking in 30 days so perhaps this whole sale was mismanaged. It looks like they used at least 1 pic from the 09 listing so who knows what kind of shape this was in when listed. Not trying to discredit the comp as I think its fine; just curious if anyone saw the listing this time around?

Add a Comment

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