Purchased for $1,910,000 in July 2007, the 2,543 square foot Noe Valley condo at 1070 Sanchez returned to the market this past February asking $2,095,000.
Following three price cuts (last listed for $1,799,000), the top-floor unit with roof deck and views sold for $1,762,500 (8% under 2007) with the sale closing escrow just last month.
Yesterday 1070 Sanchez returned to the market repainted, staged and asking $1,799,000.
∙ Listing: 1070 Sanchez (3/4.5) 2,543 sqft – $1,799,000 [MLS]
ha! Someone’s feeling snarky this morning!
like the “attic conversion” feel of the upper level
Something probably went seriously wrong for the sellers. I have a hard time believing that they intended to flip this property. More likely it’s a lost-my-job, have-to-relocate, or something similar. I feel for them.
I agree with Q – I saw this property when it was listed earlier this year and I would not identify it as a candidate for a flip. The place was completely finished and event if you just wanted to completely gut it to get rid of someone else’s style and architectural choices, there wouldn’t be any room for a price increase in this market. I really liked the place, and it was clear that it was well constructed, but the staging was not that great. Very masculine and heavy. I hope they changed that! I’d buy it at around the list price and live in it for 10 years very happily.
Very sad indeed. I guess the just rounded up to the closest 99. Good luck..the selling environment is only getting more difficult.
I just hope it’s a great new job elsewhere that is propelling the seller, because the other alternatives are not good….
The new owners are seniors who are the proprietors of a Pet and Feed Supply store in Paradise, California. I suppose one of them may have passed, but it all seems a bit strange to me…
Who was advising seniors to buy a 4 story walkup?
“Who was advising seniors to buy a 4 story walkup?”
yeah! i mean there must be a way to blame the brokers..no need for the buyer’s to be responsible for their own decisions.
This place must be very nice — and it is in desirable Noe – but, heaven’s sakes, who is buying $1.7 million CONDOS in this market? I’d thought the $1m plus condo niche was the most challenged part of the market these days.
While this site of course focuses on the dip from the 2007 price, I am struck by the surprising market strength shown by this sale.
1068 Sanchez was also created as part of this development. It was initially sold in 2007 for $1.6M and was resold in March 2010 for $1.625M to 2 Facebookers, versus a listing price of $1.695M. That’s a nominal loss with brokerage fees alone.
The same developer of 1068-1070 Sanchez (1070 Sanchez Street LLC) bought 942 South Van Ness in 2007 for $1.35M according to what I see, but MLS says $1.325M for some reason. My source could have an error. I assume the developer was going to try to develop this property too, but the market killed that idea.
The developer subsequently sold 942 SVN for $920K in June 2009 according to public records or for $999K in August 2009 according to MLS. Wtf?
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/942-S-Van-Ness-Ave-94110/home/1711079
A huge loss to follow up the huge win.
Wow…this agent is smoking something. 18.5% appreciation in this market?
sfrenegade…942 SVN appears to be a condo (and looks newly renovated). It looks to me like the 1.325/1.35 purchase was for the whole building, and the developer sold off at least one unit for 920/999K. Note that one redfin the building is twice as big on the assessors information than the unit for sale, and is on three floors versus one.
Good catch, curmudgeon, and my bad. Looks like the developer may have done well on both projects, depending on construction costs. It looks like this building may have become 942-946 South Van Ness.
It looks like 944 SVN sold for $1.1M according to MLS in June 2009 after being listed in March for $1.299M. They are all 3/3.5s, and 942 is about 1900 sqft, 944 is about 1950 sqft, and 946 is about 2000 sqft.
946 SVN is the black sheep, despite being a “magical” penthouse. It has been chasing the market down, starting with a listing at an apparent $1.399M, and now down to $1.149M as of last week after being held off the market for a year. But it seems like even at that price or lower, the developer probably did well here. Oddly, 946 says $100 for HOA, but the other two say $293. I wonder if it’s $293 total for all 3, or something else is up.
The 2007 buyers flushed about $220,000 down the toilet in losses and transaction costs. Good thing they didn’t throw money away on rent. Any bets on whether the 2010 buyer will do better or worse than that? My bet is they come out worse but it should be close.
“The 2007 buyers flushed about $220,000 down the toilet in losses and transaction costs.”
How do you figure?
Sorry, my math was off. They blew about $235,000. $147,500 in losses plus ~88,000 in selling costs @ 5%.
Never mind. I was looking at the other one where they gained 25K.
8% down only? i thought most everyone is saying stuff went down 20+% in this same time period. was feb 2007 estimated peak?
or did this do better due to location (as it does seem to be a great location)? Or is this not an apple?