Purchased for $11.75 million in late 2014, the Mid-Century Modern ‘Larsen House’ at 2610 Scott Street, which was designed by renowned architect Joseph Esherick and built in 1962, has re-sold for $10 million or $2,148 per square foot.

While the sale represents an apples-to-apples loss of 15 percent ($1.75 million) for the rather stunning home, having been re-listed for $9.75 million last month, it’s officially 3 percent “over asking” according to all industry stats and reports as well.

The “exquisite and rare” home at 2610 Scott had been back on the market since early 2015 when originally listed for $11.75 million, the price which the buyers turned sellers had paid.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by johny

    who are all these people who buy such amazingly expensive properties and then sell them in a year or two for such large losses? Is this speculation gone wrong, personal issues (divorce) or just rich folks getting bored and moving on?

  2. Posted by Duped

    Wow that’s crazy when you consider not just the loss in house price but all the closing costs, agent fees, etc

  3. Posted by MDG399

    It’s ONLY a $1.75mm loss. It’s only money. $$$$ It’s only…

    Sounds weird. Who losses such sums of $$ in SF Real Estate?

    I think they mean a $1.75mm loss from asking…

  4. Posted by soccermom

    House was listed for $9.75mm in 2014 and finally sells again in 2016 with a $9.75mm list again. Perhaps this was closer to the ‘real’ value of the home. (Only takes one buyer, right?)

    Unfortunate circumstances for the short term owners.

    • Posted by anon

      So does that make all of the overbidding that went on over the last few years “unreal”?

      Should we be looking to 2014 list prices when figuring where prices will go from here?

    • Posted by anon

      “I think the poster-in-chief cares more about the sale vs. list premium vs. discount (“It messes with my spreadsheet, not to mention the narrative-that-people-keep-observing-but-doesn’t-really-exist-cause-I’m-totally-unbiased!”) than anyone else involved.”

      Oh my, what a Renaissance in interest in the list price in just a mere 4 days!

      • Posted by soccermom

        I think you’ll find I have been fairly consistent in calling the 2014 trade expensive. And again, the poster-in-chief’s feelings are hurt about the latest transaction being ‘over-ask’ when all that matters is the sale price. Good luck out there, anon!

  5. Posted by Louis

    Yes — looks like 2014 asking might be roughly right.

    it actually settles there, not lower = decent outcome. = air out, not bubble burst. 18 months of overbid froth pushed aside. Recent market was based on very low number of transactions and people.

  6. Posted by Jim

    I don’t think this sale is a sign of any trend…just that the prior owner overpaid. While gorgeous, it is really a 2 bedroom house with 0 yard, and oblique views over someone else’s backyard. The other 2 “bedrooms” are (1) a tiny maid’s room looking at a fence 3′ away and (2) an awkward former storage room looking at the driveway. Someone got really excited over it, got into a bidding war, spent some remodeling money, and then thought better of it without ever moving in. They probably bought an even more expensive house.

  7. Posted by David

    Is this broker shennanigans? I’ve seen a number of properties that have been delisted, then relisted, somehow erase their previous pricing on Redfin. How is this legal?

  8. Posted by anon2

    Can we all please conceded that “asking price” is an essentially meaningless measure by 2016 in the Bay Area, where properties are routinely under-priced for marketing reasons.

    • Posted by David

      How is that? In this example, the true “asking price” is OVER-Priced…and is only adjusted right before COE to make it look like the market is still strong and sellers can get “over asking price”. Initial asking price > transaction price = over priced market.

  9. Posted by Denis

    This is probably the best result the seller could’ve hoped for. Also, 2600 Lyon sold for about 12% under asking after making its 4th appearance on the mls over the last 10 years.

  10. Posted by eddy

    Agree with Denis. We may have exhausted the universe of buyers that would consider buying this exact home for $10m. The real story lies in what went down in 2014 driving the price up.

    I’ve given up on the asking v selling debate. I do find it shaddy that there is lack of transparency on Redfin and other sites that hide the transaction history showing various listing prices and contract status from the record. Having that information available is valuable.

    • Posted by David

      Eddy – I thought the same thing. I saw a place relisted last week that had been previously listed months back for about $300k more than the “new” list price. As you probably guessed, the record on redfin was also adjusted…no mention of the previous price – it was simply “N/A”.

      However, I’ve found zillow to be more accurate with their listing/sale history. For this particular property, it showed everything accurately with the old list price. Not sure if that is universally the case (zillow vs. redfin), but I’ve started using both sources.

  11. Posted by anon

    “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times, it’s enemy action”

    Two apples to apples losses around -15% within the span of a week should make you look beyond issues with this “exact home”. I guess we’ll have to keep our eyes peeled for other apples, but combining these apples with some of the price reductions and inventory pile up should make you sit up and think a bit.

    And the quote I posted from the RE advisory company at the end of the “running for the exits” thread should have resonance beyond this particular home:

    ““The seemingly iniexhaustible well of very high-end buyers has proven exhaustible after all,” said Dean Wehrli, a senior vice president at John Burns. “The peak is behind us, and that’s becoming clearer and clearer to builders and buyers.”

    Re: the asking price history being hidden, I believe that certain MLS’s require that of Redfin and others as a condition of accessing their data feed.

Add a Comment

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