From one plugged-in reader in District 5:
I can see this new listing from my home, so I am following it for many reasons and it may interest SocketSite [Editor’s Note: we’re always interested in apples]: 632 Ashbury Street, between Haight and Waller.
A lower, 2 bedroom flat in a two flat building, includes a parking space in the garage and some storage. Includes a shared, very handsome and mature garden. The flat is in move in condition, but nothing very fancy. Asking as of today: $929,000. Per Redfin was last sold on 11/23/2005 for $865,000.
It will be interesting to see how literally ground zero in the Haight Ashbury is faring these days.
To another in District 9: 18 Lansing Street #402 – purchased 5/05 for $975,000, sold 8/08 for $800,000. And yet the median price in District 9 is up? Inconceivable.
∙ Listing: 632 Ashbury Street (2/1) – $929,000 [MLS]
That 18 Lansing Street property doesn’t count. It’s a loft, it’s in SOMA, etc. So no big deal. It’s not the “real” SF.
Don’t feel bad for the seller who paid $975K in 2005. It was 100% financed so no skin off his nose.
At one time it was asking $999K:
http://www.allsflofts.com/san-francisco-lofts/sale.nsf/lofts-for-sale-list/18-lansing-loft-402!open
Oh, and it sold in June 2000 for …. $800K. EXACTLY what it sold for a few weeks ago! Good thing SF real estate has been such a good “investment”. I was starting to worry that I missed something big…..
That 18 Lansing Street property doesn’t count. It’s a loft, it’s in SOMA, etc. So no big deal. It’s not the “real” SF.
Don’t feel bad for the seller who paid $975K in 2005. It was 100% financed so no skin off his nose.
At one time it was asking $999K:
http://www.allsflofts.com/san-francisco-lofts/sale.nsf/lofts-for-sale-list/18-lansing-loft-402!open
Oh, and it sold in June 2000 for …. $800K. EXACTLY what it sold for a few weeks ago! Good thing SF real estate has been such a good “investment”. I was starting to worry that I missed something big…..
I detect sarcasm. hmmm.
Point counterpoint was the format in which this was presented. Too tough to digest for my nephew?
How do you really feel?
so how has the s&p500 done over the same time period?
i guess all that easy stock market money can come into the collapsing re market now.
hmmm. this must be the part of Ashbury Street that extends into the Marina.
unc satch no need to copy entire post
Satchel correctly points out that 18 lansing was once listed at $999K, and I’m fairly certain that it was listed north of $1.1M prior to that. It had been listed and then removed from MLS at least once prior to finally selling.
Also, to paco’s point, I’ve noticed that there’s generally a high correlation between real estate prices in SF and the S&P500. One recent notable exception is the period from ’02-’03 when the stock market was sinking after the dotcom bust and 9/11 but the real estate market thrived on low interest rates and loose lending. FWIW, I think we’ll see the reversal of that anomaly in the next couple years when the stock market emerges from this downturn while lending standards remain tight.
Why don’t my apples ever end up on the front door? I guess Noe Valley isn’t part of the “Real SF” any more.
Anyone know what the place on 30th street went for?
Paco:
you bring up a good point.
it is true that the stock market has been basically stagnant for nearly 10 years now which would have been unbelievable to anybody during the stock bubble of 99… I’d guess few would think we’d be so low today even if you asked them in 2002. (I believe I’ve brought up this point on SS before as well)
Likewise, it should be unsurprising to anybody that we could have no RE appreciation for 10 years either.
so if/when you purchase, just make sure that you can afford the place, and that you will be there for a LONG time (10 years?), and that your carrying costs of the home are equivalent to or less than the cost of an equivalent rental over that time period.
if you do that (owning costs LESS than renting) then you may be just fine!
This way if there is no appreciation you haven’t lost anything. if there is appreciation you’ll have a little christmas gift!
There ARE times even in today’s market when it makes sense to purchase a home. (although not really in the CA markets)
clarification: all the above “you” meant “you” in general, not specific to Paco purchasing things.
ex-sfer
“Likewise, it should be unsurprising to anybody that we could have no RE appreciation for 10 years either.”
everything i bought and sold or held onto in sf (and santa barb co.) has gone up. whether that was bought/fixed/sold or bought/fixed/rented its the same.
and my point is that its easier to become a building expert than it is to become a commodity/equity/currency trader. much, much easier.
District 9 prices are way down, not up. From August 2007 to August 2008, the median for condos is down 20.2% from $873,132 to $697,119 and for SFHs is down 27.7% from $1,077,295 to $779,306, according to http://www.sanfranciscoschtuff.com
And, of course, the condo numbers would be much worse if the new high-end buildings weren’t changing the mix sold.
Nutritious, delicious apples.
It’s a nice place. If I could get it for 4x income I might even pounce.
wow, the editor is relentlessly censoring.
what’s up with that?
[Editor’s Note: If tripping a spam filter that’s been in place since day one is considered “censoring,” then so be it. The message paco would have received when he left his comment: “To protect against malicious or inappropriate comments, we have employed an algorithm that flags certain comments to be held for approval. And for one reason or another, your comment has been flagged. Please don’t take offense. The algorithm isn’t always perfect (but hey, who is), and we’ll do our best to review (and hopefully approve) your comment ASAP. There is no need to re-post your comment. And as always, thank you for plugging in.” And yes, paco’s comment (1:05 PM) has since been approved.]
i apologize. i was too impatient to wait for my brilliant comments to hit the screen.
Paul G:
Are you sure those numbers tell the whole story? I just glanced at http://www.sanfranciscoschtuff.com and although it does confirm your assertion that d9 is down, it also indicates that districts 1,4,5,6,7, and 10(!) are all up! I think the d10 increase is due to sampling issues (only 2 or so condo’s) but still – I’m really surprised to see so many districts up.
…forgot to add that, assuming this info is correct, that the condo price decline you mention is due to districts 2,3,8, and the aforementioned d9. Wait – I just looked again, district 2 and 3 don’t even have yoy info! So is the entire decline due to district 8 and 9? Wouldn’t this mostly be new construction on the east side?
To grow and harvest more apples . . .
it would be great if SS could add a permanent “Apple Cart Forum” to the site, where readers could post recently listed properties in their neighborhood that they know to have sold not long ago, and others could chime in on selling price (when that’s not of public record), renovations between sales, etc.
In my neighborhood alone (Valencia Corridor/Dolores Heights/Noe Valley), I know of three “likely apples” but I’m unable to ascertain their exact status:
3327 22nd St. (b/t Valencia & Guerrero): a top-floor, 3/1, 1600 sqft condo in an Eastlake era three-unit building. Sold for $810,000 in 7/2004. Listed in 8/2008 for $879,000 and sold quickly, but the sale price is not public (or not yet available on public websites like redin and propertyshark).
1450 Guerrero Apt. 1 (at Cesar Chavez): a very small 1 BR (2 room) TIC unit; was listed earlier this summer for $439,000 and is no longer on the market (not sure if it sold). The building appears to contain 4 very similar units; the last two sales on propertyshark were in Feb. and April of 2007 for $401,000 and $417,000.
248 Lexington @ 19th: a 3/1 TIC (1273 sqft) in a building with 4 similar units; just listed for $749,000. I know that several units in this building were in the 2005-06 period; propertyshark shows one sale in 2006, but does not give the price. A plugged-in reader with access to the “private” side of the MLS server should be able to figure out the price.
659 Castro @ 19th. Top floor 3/1 TIC, fairly large. Listed in 8/2008 for $749,000 with “assumable financing,” meaning that this is a re-sale of a unit in a building that was TIC’d some time ago. Per propertyshark, the last recorded sale seems to be a sale of the whole building ($1,728,000 in 2006), but this doesn’t square with the assumable financing part of the current listing. Plugged-in readers???
There was also a recent listing for a modest (indeed, rather junky) 2BR TIC unit with assumable financing on Guerrero St, about a block south of Cesar Chavez. It’s no longer on the market so perhaps sold. I don’t remember the address and don’t know the most recent and previous sale prices, but again, anyone with access to the “inside” side of the MLS database should be able to figure this out.
[Editor’s Note: Excellent suggestion, it’s on its way, and as always…thank you for plugging in.]
One months data for one district YOY is pretty unreliable data – for example last month showed d5 20% Up YOY.
I could well believe that as whole d9 is down – but 28%? – and 20% of that in the last month..hmm
Nevertheless I was also interested bu the assertion in the headline statement that “yet the median price in District 9 is up” and am curious what data that is based on.
NVJIm, my apples never show up either. I sent a couple D5 ones in this week.
[Editor’s Note: We’re not sure where you sent them to, but we honestly can’t find any record of your recent “tip(s).”]
apple cart – that’s a great idea
though I must admit, bias does figure in it. after all, I know of two nice apples very near me that appreciated rather strongly and unexpectedly (and i know they were apples) from 2006 to 2008. But full disclosure, I am a bear and probably self censored submitting those two apples. Besides, a foreclosure nearby then showed up and knocked those two apples way off of the tree.
selection bias may or may not be present due to the editor. with the apple cart we will probably have a fair amount of ‘submission’ bias. yeah, it isn’t a real term but it sounded sf s&m so i went for it.
[Editor’s Note: As much as some like to whine, we don’t cherry pick our apples. That being said, we do take the time to filter for oranges (think renovations), we do favor holding periods of 1-3 years (while typically not the best investment strategy, it’s does make it easier to isolate discrete market movements), and we do know we don’t catch them all (which is why we call for “tips” and offer “comments”). And yes, apparently it is fruity Tuesday.]
3327 22nd St. (b/t Valencia & Guerrero): a top-floor, 3/1, 1600 sqft condo in an Eastlake era three-unit building. Sold for $810,000 in 7/2004. Listed in 8/2008 for $879,000 and sold quickly, but the sale price is not public (or not yet available on public websites like redin and propertyshark).
– Sold for 945k
[Editor’s Note: Great example. Was the new parking space completed before or after the sale in 2004? And how much of the appreciation would you attribute to the period from 2004 to 2005 versus the most recent three years?]
I don’t think “submission bias” would be much of a problem in the aggregate for the proposed Apple Cart Forum, b/c even if most posters were to post strategically, the different communities of interest (sellers, buyers) would each submit the apples that favor their side. To the extent that SS has a broad and attentive readership (many sellers and buyers, each observing their immediate environs), the colletive result should give us a pretty accurate representation of SF market trends.
By the way, the “Editor’s Note” re: the garage at 3327 22nd St. is exactly the sort of question I would hope to see asked (and answered) in the Apple Cart Forum. If it turns out the garage was added after the 2004 sale, then this ersatz apple should be kicked off the Cart.
Nevertheless I was also interested by the assertion in the headline statement that “yet the median price in District 9 is up” and am curious what data that is based on.
Posted by: REpornaddict at September 16, 2008 1:51 PM
It’s hard to know what numbers are completely accurate. The numbers via the following link, although not broken down by the month, paint a generally stable “average price” picture for D9 and, for that matter, for D1, D2, D3, D4, D7 and D8 as well … although the volumes of sales [on an annualized basis] are lower. While I can’t vouch for the numbers, it is another set of inputs to weigh.
http://www.blackstone-sanfrancisco.com/199.html
Here’s another for the Apple Cart:
285 Clinton Park, b/t Guerrero & Market (Duboce Triangle area). A top-floor, 4/1 TIC, which I’d estimate at about 1600 sqft (small rooms, but many of them). Hit the market this past weekend at $760,000 (not yet on MLS), with assumable financing in place and “2 years in the condo lottery”–so it’s an existing TIC. But there’s no record of the building on propertshark or redfin, so no way of determining the last sale (again, unless one has inside MLS access).
632 Ashbury Street (2/1) – $929,000 [MLS]
My estimate is that this goes for less than $850K. they are pricing the haight at pac hts prices.
Here are two good “apples” from my old neck of the woods. Both are in nice areas, with no major issues; neither has sold yet.
845 Monterey. Westwood Highlands (District 4). Sold for $998K in January 2007. It’s been on sale for almost 6 months, now asking $959K. It’s a perfectly clean “apple” (I’ve been inside it).
3035 25th Avenue. The “nicest” part of Merced manor (District 3). Sold for $1,288,000 in June 2005. It has been for sale for over 6 months (listing was “renewed” by price reduction) and is now asking $1,359,000. The owner has a large downpayment at risk here. It is basically a clean apple (I’v ebeen inside and spoken with the agent), BUT the current owner has put about $50K of upgrades into it, including: 1) solar panels and related electrical equipment; 2) new wood floors throughout lower level; 3) new paving in back + light landscaping (planters and trees); 4) new furnace and most ducting; and 5) new hot water heater. I estimate it would sell for about $1,200,000, but let’s see:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/3035-25th-Ave-94132/home/1640335/sfarmls-337785
Sorry, here is the link for that 845 Monterey Blvd “apple”:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco-County/845-Monterey-Blvd-94127/home/692492
Are these apples?
990 Duncan St #207G
District 4, Diamond Heights
Listed on 9/15/8 at $522,000
Last sales on Jun 08, 2005 at $515,000
This 1bd/1bath/parking 744 sq ft unit is listed at $705 psf. Neighborhood comps seem to be $650 psf. Maybe overpriced as much as $40,000.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/990-Duncan-St-94131/unit-207G/home/841130?utm_source=myredfin&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=listings_update&utm_nooverride=1
69 Clementine St #202
District 9, South of Market
Listed on 9/5/8 at $438,000
Last sale – Not listed??
From the listing: “Short sale–GREAT oppportunity to pick up a prime SOMA condo at $120k less than last list price.”
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/69-Clementina-St-94105/unit-202/home/12543057?utm_source=myredfin&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=listings_update&utm_nooverride=1
3035 25th Avenue. The “nicest” part of Merced manor (District 3). Sold for $1,288,000 in June 2005. It has been for sale for over 6 months (listing was “renewed” by price reduction) and is now asking $1,359,000
Clear Merced Manor appreciation if it sells. huh.
I’ve been keeping an eye on 845 Monterey too. I looked at it 2+ years ago when it was last listed (I know it sold in 2007 but it sat for a long time before then too). My recollection, which may be faulty, is that the upstairs is fine but the downstairs looks like it’s been through multiple renovations by different people and doesn’t feel coherent. For example, I think there were three separate ground-floor entrances. It’s perfectly liveable but any buyer is going to want to do something about the downstairs and that might put people off.
An Apple a Day at Heritage on Fillmore
First I have a question. A year ago, Redfin shows a bunch of sales between $600 psf to $841 psf.
http://www.redfin.com/search#pt=3&sf=1,2&v=3&lat=37.781707999999995&long=-122.432212&zoomLevel=17&parcel_by_property_id=17305980&market=sanfrancisco
On August 29, 2008, Redfin shows a recorded sale for a 2 bed/2 bath 1400 sq ft condo at $647,000. That’s only $460 psf. What explains the low $ psf? No sarcasm here, a serious question to anyone plugged in. I can’t believe it could be just the prices falling.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/1310-Fillmore-St-94115/unit-503/home/17305989
Now the apple in the making 🙂 A 2 bed/2 bath/ parking/ views newly listed at $825,000. Last sale on 6/27/2007 at $810,000.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/1310-Fillmore-St-94115/unit-803/home/17306631
“For example, I think there were three separate ground-floor entrances. [about 845 Monterey]”
I agree with you – the upstairs is actually pretty nice, the downstairs a bit muddled. My recollection though is that there is only 1 ground floor entrance (looks like it used to be an illegal in law at some point in the past), but there is an interior door to the garage if I’m not mistaken.
It’s worth noting that the prior owner seems to have gotten all the permits straight, declaring about $100K in renovation costs, so it’s a fully permitted house from what I can tell.
This isn’t a bad spot. It’s a corner house, so the property is pretty big. It does abut Monterey (which is a busy), but Westwod Park is really nice and Monterey is not too much of a drawback right around there.
It sold for $700K in the year 2000, and that’s before the latest renovations (including new kitchen upstairs) and permits.
I actually think the house has a lot of potential to be a nice family home (and as you note it’s perfectly livable as is), but IMO it only makes sense at around $600K (as an owner occupied residence).
I love the apple cart idea! Two homes that I looked at in NV in August are now on Property Shark. Both sold quickly.
3888 26th Street, sold for $1.2 million. Last sale 7/25/2002 $861K.
4090 25th Street, sold for $1.15 million. Last sale 6/13/2003 $830K.
I have no idea how much renovation was done in between sales, unfortunately.
Still have a long way to fall to hit 2000 prices in NV. Hard to believe it will happen, but I’m willing to wait and see.
OT, but does anyone know why Property Shark lists loan details for some sales but not others? Is there a box you can check to keep those details private?
how much is sf property land and how much is improvements?
if you believe they a’nt creating more land (if global warming doesn’t lower the seas) shouldn’t land appreciate higher than improvements? Wha about the contrary. Discuss
A Bumper Crop of Apples
Reviewing the new listings on Redfin, I see quite a few likely apples. A couple of these may be worth keeping an eye on as they ripen.
The first is a small Mission/Dolores 1 bed/1 bath/deeded parking for $399,000. Last sold on Feb 25, 2005 for $435,000.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/3250-16th-St-94103/unit-1/home/1352168?utm_source=myredfin&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=listings_update&utm_nooverride=1
The second is a nice Pacific Heights 2 bed/ 2 bath/ views/parking condo on a high floor newly listed for $949,000. Last sold on 4/11/2006 for $890,000.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/1800-Washington-St-94109/unit-916/home/1028713?utm_source=myredfin&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=listings_update&utm_nooverride=1
A Couple of Apples
Both apples, if sold at list prices, will show very healthy appreciation in real SF.
First, a 1/1/parking condo in Lake, bought in Nov 2004 for $537.5K, is just listed for $649K. A pretty solid 5% per year.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/92-6th-Ave-94118/home/1996286?utm_source=myredfin&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=listings_update&utm_nooverride=1
Second, a 2/1.5/parking condo on Telegraph Hill, bought in Sept 2006 for $741K, is now listed for $795K. Still a pretty solid 3.6% per year.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/33-Midway-St-94133/unit-304/home/1600134?utm_source=myredfin&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=listings_update&utm_nooverride=1
Oh gosh, we totally got away from haight-ashbury here didn’t we? And we are going to track the haight-ashbury using a property with a no-address MLS listing? That seems like a biased choice of indicator. Listings with no address are always the first ones I go look at, duh, no. Ah socketsite. Really, this neighborhood seems to be holding up well.
Following up on that Westwood Park “apple” (see “Posted by: Satchel at September 18, 2008 10:09 AM” and “Posted by: Satchel at September 16, 2008 5:13 PM” above), the wishing price for 845 Monterey Blvd has been lowered to $899K, or 10% below its last sale price of $998K in 2007.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco-County/845-Monterey-Blvd-94127/home/692492
Prices started going down out in that part of District 4 apples-to-apples in early 2006 as near as I can tell. So this one is probably already off 15-20% from “peak” (it would have sold for more than $998K in 2006 for sure).
Anyway, regardless of how much from “peak”, this will be very costly for the homemoaner. Even if it sells here (it’s been for sale for almost 6 months) the owner will eat a capital loss in excess of $150K after commisions and taxes, or almost $5K per month of the holding period.
A better, more “true” measure of the loss would also incorporate the difference between its rental equivalent cost and carrying costs over the period. That likely puts the true “loss” from this purchase at well over $200K. And of course it has not sold yet, and so could go up significantly from here.
Mistakes in SF real estate are very costly!!
Sorry, typo above.
I meant a “capital loss in excess of $150K, or almost $8K per month of the holding period.”
Well, we’ll see if they seal the deal, but 623 Ashbury is in contract. Love those shiny apples.
A Glen Park Apple (and Foreclosure)
Last sold 1/2005 for $729,000, this 3bed/2bath SFR could be yours for $649,000. (The bank just bought it for $903,522.)
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/526-Arlington-St-94131/home/807615
Looks like our homeowner got an 170K payday by saddling the banks with 250K loss. But don’t you fret none, uncles Hank and Ben are going to pick that bank up and kiss away it’s boo-boos at your expense.
The sale of 632 Ashbury Street closed escrow today with a reported contract price of $870,000 or $5,000 more than its purchase price in November of 2005.
“Clear Merced Manor appreciation if it sells. huh.”
– from (Posted by: anon@anon.no at September 17, 2008 8:11 AM) above
Well, I guess we have our answer: clear DEpreciation.
3035 25th Avenue closed on 10/18/08 for $1,199,500, 7% BELOW its 6/05 price of $1,288,000.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/3035-25th-Ave-94132/home/1640335
Not a perfectly clean apple, but very close. The seller spent at least $50K upgrading the house, including installing hardwood floors downstairs, new water heater and furnace, solar panels on rook and related electrical work (agent said it cost $35K alone) and light landscaping (in addition to, of course, repainting for sale, staging costs, etc.). All in all, about $200K or so tossed away in capital loss (after selling costs) to live in this foggy little part of SF where you could easily have rented an equivalent property for $3K/mo in 2005 (and probably less).
Interesting – and not sure what to make of it – property shark shows the purchaser was the listing agent (it sat for at least 8 months – she was the second listing agent). Perhaps things are so slow that she had to buy the property to pay herself the commission? 🙂 I wonder what kind of loan she has….
$1.199M is a tremendous amount of money still for Merced Manor. That’s one of the areas of SF that should be hit mercilessly in the upcoming declines.
An “apple” that was discussed in this thread – 845 Monterey – has reappeared, listed at $778K:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/845-Monterey-Blvd-94127/home/692492
It last sold for $998K in 2007, so it’s asking 22% less than last sale. It sold for $702K
in 2000. It’s not a short sale or REO, so this should be interesting to watch.
LMRiM, re: 845 Monterey.
From the Redfin link you provided last year:
MOST TERMITE DAMAGE ALREADY FIXED
Whatever expenses they had fixing these termite damages should be taken into account.
That’s not the cleanest apple on many levels…
Agreed, sort of, SFS. The damage was there in 2007 when it last sold, and so you’d think the property is MORE valuable now. I look at termite damage as maintenance, not really transforming an apple into an orange. Whatever damage there is/was, it was there when it sold in 2007, that’s for sure!
There was a remodel in the 2000s (but prior to last 2007 sale), and permits were obained for the inlaw post-2000 iirc (I saw the house on open house once). So yes, not a totally clean apple from 2000.
If “most” of the termite damage was fixed then it was probably the easiest 80% that required 20% of the work. You can bet the remaining 20% will be much harder to access, perhaps requiring floors, walls, ceilings, roofs, etc. to be opened up and then repaired.
The potential buyer would be wise to take the disclosure to a contractor for an accurate quote on the cost of that remaining work.