January 22, 2013

If The Median Price Is Way Up, Why Wasn't The Value On Valley?

554 Valley

On the market at the end of 2006 asking $2,879,000, at which point it was the most expensive single-family home actively listed for sale in Noe Valley, the four-bedroom home at 554 Valley Street ended up selling for $2,879,000 in March of 2007.

Returned to the market this past June asking $2,895,000, the sale of 554 Valley closed escrow last week with a reported contract price of $2,725,000, five (5) percent or $154,000 less than six (6) years ago. At the same time, the median sale price in Noe Valley is up around 25% over the same period of time as larger and more expensive homes have come to market, changing the mix of sales.

Speaking of larger and more expensive, the most expensive single-family home currently listed for sale in Noe Valley is 1507 Noe Street which tripled in size from 2006 to 2012, was purchased as new for $2,950,000 this past March, was listed for $3,599,000 this past November, and was reduced to $3,399,000 two weeks ago.

Garrett's Quick Peek [SocketSite]
Medians Are Up, But Don’t Confuse That With Increasing "Prices" [SocketSite]
Say Hello To Your Little Friend (In The Shower) At 1507 Noe [SocketSite]
The Facebook Effect On Noe [SocketSite]

First Published: January 22, 2013 10:00 AM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

What is the Noe Median? I wonder what 4019 25th St will sell for? Total fixer.

Posted by: eddy at January 22, 2013 10:38 AM

What about median per sq foot?

Do you have the numbers for that in Noe over the equivalent period?

Posted by: REpornaddict at January 22, 2013 10:41 AM

i like valley street, but not this far up the hill..its not walkable, cold and windy, and you have to drive everywhere.

I think a place sold on Valley (between Church and Dolores) for $3mm sometime last year? That area is more desirable in my opinion.

Posted by: chad n. freud at January 22, 2013 10:48 AM

chad. best name evah

Posted by: curmudgeon at January 22, 2013 11:26 AM

*time to break out an oldie but a goodie*

Simple "Medians are not prices!"

Posted by: badlydrawnbear at January 22, 2013 11:46 AM

Median per sq foot much more accurate however.

was a much touted figure here a few years ago, so must be available somewhere.

anyone? Ed?

Posted by: REpornaddict at January 22, 2013 12:12 PM

Couldn't find median price per sq foot, but this has average price per sq foot - showing them to be significantly above those from 6 years ago for 94114

http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/94114-San_Francisco/market-trends/#qma_price_per_sqft_chart_container

Posted by: REpornaddict at January 22, 2013 12:28 PM

the address was 171 Valley. It sold for $3mm in late 2011.

curmudgeon - thanks for the compliment.

Posted by: chad n. freud at January 22, 2013 12:54 PM

Thank you for the title to this thread. Until reading it, I never would have guessed at an individual property would not have the same result as the median figure. Who knew? I'm going to write a letter to try to get this insight nominated for a Nobel Prize in Economics.

Posted by: Rillion at January 22, 2013 1:15 PM

Rillion Obama got one for doing nothing...Maybe you can too

Posted by: jimmythekid at January 22, 2013 1:36 PM

Post a comment


(required - will be published)


(required - will not be published, sold, or shared)


(optional - your "Posted by" name will link to this URL)

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


Continue Perusing SocketSite:

« The 43,580 New Units In San Francisco's Current Housing Pipeline | HOME | Bay Area Home Sales Slow, Except In San Francisco »