Purchased for $835,000 in May 2006 just two years after changing hands for $648,375 (ah, the good old days of easy unsustainable 13 percent average annual appreciation), 2773 Folsom Street #301 returned to the market yesterday asking $799,000.
A sale at asking would represent average annual depreciation of 1.2 percent over the past forty-four (44) months for the three-bedroom/bath Inner Mission condo and value it at 5 percent under its 2006 price (not accounting for the added value of its “updated kitchen”).
∙ Listing: 2773 Folsom Street #301 (3/3) – $799,000 [MLS]
More like early 2004 to late 2004 early 2005 saw a sizeable spike in prices. Then it was on average (not counting some worse months, such as September ’07, and even quarters) a few points a up a year, until 3/4 of the way through 2008. Now it’s 44 months after May 2006, and 35K down. That’s after September 2008’s sea change. For a nice condo in a desirable part of the Mission I’d say this one is pretty representative of what people should realistically expect: 800K for a good Mission condo. I think it will sell for close to list, and potentially even back toward its former purchase price.
That wouldn’t be much of a drop, if it does sell for list. Is the current story that things around the 800K mark are more stable than the loftier valuations (like the Hoffman St. REO listed earlier today?) due to financing issues?
photographic lie
low sun casting long shadow
oblique evidence
That building has a serious case of the uglies.
“photographic lie
low sun casting long shadow
oblique evidence ”
?
I live a block from this place. I saw it when it was built. It’s a bit ugly from the street, and it’s a very busy corner, but it looks like a decent place inside. I would testify it is an excellent location overall and would agree that it will likely sell for asking or above.
thanks for posting on the Inner Mission. A lot is happening down here that is very positive from the RE POV, so good on ya Socketsite.
This will sell for > asking price…
yawn…what i’ve been saying for the past 12 months…decent places in the mish, $500-800k, have lost little from market high, 5-15%. pretty good considering we are just emerging from a serious resession!
karn evil 9
This place looks like student housing to me.
And that is not my idea of a “low HOA fee.”
^ god, what a bunch of whiners.
I’ve walked by this bldg dozens of times and it looks OK.
Price aside, seems to be a good enough simple home for a working family.
as always, the pricing is problematic since regular joes can’t afford $800k, but there’s SF for you.
I could easily live in this place with a few cosmetic changes.
Who buys this kind of place? Lots of people…
Great location, good size, and there’s families all over the Mission already. You can see changes for better quality of life along 24th Street every week. Many of the comments here seem to be from previous reputation, not what’s happening in the Mission right now. This place will go quickly at $799k, maybe more.
Does this place get much spillover of undesirables from the nearby projects?
“Undesirables”?
“Nearby” ?
I wonder who buys these places? Obviously out of range for native Mission locals and most immigrants
Is it young families or Silicon Valley types?
Many years ago when I lived at South Van Ness they condo converted two of the units somehow. Both were 3/2s. One was bought by a single guy and one by a couple. Both drove to the South Bay.
I can’t imagine many familes who could afford this place wanting to live there
I could easily live in this place with a few cosmetic changes.
For you, I recommend botox and a tummy-tuck.
If the front yard was not a solid slab of concrete with black security fencing this building would look less ghetto.
photographic lie
low sun casting long shadow
oblique evidence
____________________
thank god, the ansel adams of socketsite has returned to tell us about the ethics and great worldly importance of real estate photography. i mean, its what got us into this mess in the first place, right?
“Undesirables”?
“Nearby” ?
Sure, isn’t there a project at 26th and Folsom? And plenty of violent crime around 24th and Capp too. So while they’re shooting (no pun intended) for families, not a good family place.
^ everything matters/it’s all local bro (no pun intended)
^ comment intended for anon$random
When I see the word spillover I don’t associate it with two-and-a-half rather long city blocks. Twenty fourth and Capp is probably the most trafficked corner in San Francisco, and unfortunately, bad things are going to occur there from time to time. I’m not going to argue how and where people should raise children. I happen to know lots of great people who grew up, and are growing up, in the Mission.
I dunno man, I always thought Capp and Shotwell had perfect names for the stuff that goes on.
Regardless of whether or not you think it’s family friendly, it’s gentrifying really fast. Twenty fourth street is pretty different than it was even two or three years ago. And to be honest, most families aren’t trying to buy condos anyway. They’re trying to get houses in the western neighborhoods.
“I happen to know lots of great people who grew up, and are growing up, in the Mission.”
So do I. My mother and father are two. They lived there because they were poor.
Who would pay 800K for this place is what I wonder? I can’t see a upper middle class family wanting to live here
There must be a way for the city government to incentivize normal family housing to be built in this city.
I understand that 800K buys a mansion many places in this country. Don’t get me wrong.
Zig, if no one will pay $800k for this, it will sell for less.
City government does incentivize “normal family housing” at fixed lower prices, through affordable housing requirements for new condo complexes. There are affordable units in the city to buy now without a lottery. Otherwise, the price is what someone will pay. Or a family can pay less by renting, or buying someplace cheaper.
For you, I recommend botox and a tummy-tuck.
ROFL. so you’re calling me fat and wrinkled? that’s what I get for being such a sour puss huh?
🙂
Dan
This wasn’t my point. I am sure someone will buy it.
“normal family housing at fixed lower prices, through affordable housing requirements for new condo complexes” is inadequate to counter productive IMO
The process is so onerous and distortive here for market rate housing development that it seems to lead to a lot of these types of condos. It seems the incentives are there to build these faux luxury condos for singles who drive to the Silicon Valley. Maybe I am wrong.
I would imagine a process could be established in certain areas to lower fees and exactions (e.g no affordable housing mandates) and greatly shorten the process in exchange for developments more suitable for regular ole families like 3 bedrooms and much cheaper finishes
Just my bias being middle class and wanting to start a family but for the life of me I can’t see who this was built for
The projects are on the other side of Garfield Park at Cesar Chavez.
Another recent Mission Apple is 35 Linda St. (at 18th), a 2/2 condo which sold this December for $990,000 after being listd for $1,020,000. It was built and sold for the first time in the Spring of 2005 or 2006, I think, but I can’t find the original sales price on redfin. Does anyone have the number?
35 Linda sold for 10K more in 2006, 1M.
So a drop of 1% from pretty damn close to peak to now? I could live with that.
If anonn’s numbers can be verified (and the precise date of first sale established), it seems to me that 35 Linda is worth a full socketsite feature. It’s a very clean apple–though one which presumably has suffered at least 10k in cosmetic depreciation from its original sale in “brand new” condition. Any thoughts, anyone, on why 35 Linda has declined in value so little?
Because that’s one of the best parts of the Mission, 18th street is even better than it was in 2006, and the Mission in general has been doing pretty well.
Might be a $10K nominal loss, but 35 Linda should have sold for $1.072M to keep up with inflation.
Might be a $10K nominal loss, but 35 Linda should have sold for $1.072M to keep up with inflation.
Yeah. I’m sure that the inflation indexed bonds the sellers also bought in 2006 was a nice hedge. But they decided not to live in them, seeing as how they are pieces of paper and all.
[observantneighbor’s] comment/request is an extremely interesting one. I tried “tipping” the editor of this site about this very condo on Linda Street on two separate occasions. That request was ignored. In my opinion, I think it’s more evidence that there is a definite bias not to feature properties that may actually have the potential to do well in this market. It is a very clean apple indeed. The reason why it did well is because it is on a lovely quiet street in a great part of the Mission. Linda Street has a very “European feel” to it. The condo itself is small and underwhelming, but can’t beat proximity to so many great things in the neighborhood.
I tried “tipping” 35 Linda as well. I’m not sure why it wasn’t featured but if you want to give the Editor the benefit of the doubt, you might imagine that the reason it wasn’t featured is that the original sale price is not of public record (at least, it’s not available through propertyshark or redfin).
Unless “toadie” and “observantneighbor” are one and the same, our dear toadie seems to be fibbing a bit about ever having tipped us off to 35 Linda (observantneighbor, however, did). Yes, we keep track.
As noted above, there’s no online public record of the sale price for 35 Linda or even a sale date which could have been helpful for backing into an estimated sale price (although the potential to transfer a tax basis can muddle those calculations). Nor are there any easily accessible records to verify an arm’s length transaction, but yet “evidence of bias” it must be.
And all on a post for a property we’re featuring that will probably show a fairly similar outcome. Did we mention 2773 Folsom #301 is already in contract?
Well done toadie, well done.
dearest editor, I did e-mail you about this property on two separate occasions. Your dear toadie does not fib…why would I? btw, I was easily able to find the previous sale price on Zillow….$1,000,000 in 3/2006. Well done I must say so myself.
[Editor’s Note: Touche with respect to Zilliow, which we’ll freely admit isn’t in our rotation of reliable resources (nor does it help with that arm’s length question which we try to check when new construction is involved). With respect to those past two tips, please feel free to forward the emails. Cheers.]
[Editor’s Note Redux: Hold the phone with respect to those two tips…]
We owe “toadie” and apology. While not submitted as a potential apple, we did receive the following tip on September 13:
Three days before we had received our first tip with respect to 35 Linda from “observantneighbor” at which point we had already passed it over as an apple (for the reasons already noted), and it obviously didn’t make our non-apple cut (unless they tell a story, most properties don’t).
Again, our apologies for accusing toadie of a fib, but not for choosing to pass the property over in September. And all on a post for a property we’re featuring that will probably show a fairly similar outcome in terms of an “apples to apples” outcome.
Speaking of Inner Mission apples, a plugged-in tipster notes the recent sale of 25 Bartlett #2. Purchased for $813,500 in September 2005, sold for $725,000 in December 2009 (11% below its 2005 value).
From the October listing: “Modern 2BR/2BA condo in HOT Valencia Corridor on the RIGHT side of Mission!”