We’re not in the habit of mentioning a sale until it has closed. And considering 3816 22nd Street has been in and out of contract before, we should probably wait.

Then again, it appears as though all contingencies have been waived this time around. And the sale of Firehouse 44, which was first listed for sale for \$6,375,000 in May of 2008 and currently listed for \$4,250,000, is sure to generate a bit of Noe Valley buzz.

Today, the sale of 3816 22nd Street closed escrow with a reported contract price of \$4,050,000. We’re still waiting for the neighborhood scoop before we start dishing. Keep in mind the unrenovated Firehouse 44 was purchased for \$2,100,000 in 2006 prior to its massive and rather expensive renovation.

1. Couldn’t they have closed it for \$4,044,4444.
Congrats to all. This was always a very awesome home and neat project. Seems like a decent price even if waaaaay below expectations. \$660/psf seems a bit low for this home.

2. Purchase loans (2/06) = \$1.7m
Construction loan (11/06) = \$2.9m
Congrats to all?

3. You don’t add the two together. From the outside it looks like a 1.06M gross. From that subtract carrying costs + closing costs.

4. anon.ed,
can you explain that a little? Just trying to understand what you mean – why aren’t the two added together, and why the 1.06M gross?
Thx

5. 6140 square feet x \$250 psft = 1.53M.
Hold averaged \$3M @ a lowball 6% for 3.5 years=\$630K
Property tax \$3M average x 1.2% for 3.5 years=\$120K
Sell+ staging \$250K
I get \$4.63 cost. I don’t see any profit here at all.

6. The construction loan isn’t going to be in 2nd position. It’s going to take the first, subsume it, and then tack on the money for the build. 2.9M is the debt basis. I think maybe it was a typo before, because it is 4.05 – 2.9 – holding – closing.

7. If the purchase price was \$2.1M and the loans totaled \$1.7M don’t you need to include the \$400k cash they put in?

8. ^^
Yes, plus closing costs on the original and then on the new. Loan probably had some baked in interest payments in there.

9. There are different ways to view that. The 400 was their cash, which they leveraged. It is not debt. Include it for “break even,” and up. Don’t include it, and add to holding costs, (400 + 3.5 years holding) for ROI on cash.

10. If they invested \$1m in equity and sold for \$1m their “gross return” wouldn’t be \$1m which is what anon.ed suggests. You need to subtract the debt AND the equity for a gross number, from that subtract the holding and selling costs for net return. Divide that by the equity for ROI.

11. Where did I say the words “gross return” ?

12. and yes, it looks like they maybe broke about even at best

13. but they bequeathed an improved property to the city so its all good.
maybe a little over improved compared to what economic fundamentals would have justified but its an ill bubble that blows no one any good.

14. Since when is \$4m to live in Noe Valley reason for congratulations?

15. Congrats are due since the buyer gets a nice special home. The seller unloads the home finally and can move on to the next thing. And we hopefully don’t have to see this home on SS again for at least a few years cheers.

16. @4oceans
Also, the new owner got a home that they (presumably) were very excited about at a price per square foot that is well in line with the area. The number is big, but a good deal imho. Many have drooled over this home for the past few years…

17. Time for a mailbox. Its been 5 years…

18. Sorry -I don’t see this as a win for Noe Valley. Having seen the entire inside before the remodel, I would say the new firehouse is an atrocious nouveau riche statement of house pornography. No grace, no flow, all excess and one upmanship. This is a win for the gaudy and the greedy. Just sayin…

19. Looks like it sold again, this time for \$5.5M.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/3816-22nd-St-94114/home/1711146