This isn’t exactly the same 1342 Shrader that sold for $1,900,000 in 2003. Think major remodel, reclaimed space, and a new guest studio/office in the garage out back.
And wouldn’t you know it, but of the 3,300+ square feet of living area (plus 1,000+ for garage and storage), we’re drawn straight to the aforementioned 485 square foot guest studio. What can we say, we’ve got a soft spot for small/unique spaces.
∙ Listing: 1342 Shrader (5+/4.5) – $3,500,000 [talklein.com] [Floor Plans]
Well done. Reminds me of Belveder.
Is this a 3.5MM neighborhood? I mean the only view here is of the playground.
Wow, from $1.9M in 2003 to $3.5M now? That is a *ton* of appreciation!!
Foolio – This is not so much appreciation but rather value added by improvement. It looks like the seller spent significantly on this property since 2003
@milkshake:
Looks like someone forgot to turn on his sarcasm detector this morning… 😉
Du-oh ! lesse here … (flip) … OK sarcasm detector armed and working. 🙂
I always wonder how Case-Schiller weeds out improved properties like this so it doesn’t skew CSI. I guess they are doing a lot of research into permits and so forth.
@milkshake:
Good question…just goes to show how even the best measures have probably been over-exaggerating the “appreciation” in the SFRE market the past few years.
My big pet peeve has always been the back-of-the-envelope calculations people seem to use to figure out how much someone “made” on a sale…
New selling price – Old selling price = gain!!!
…neglecting carrying costs, commissions, renovation/remodeling costs, etc., etc.
I always wonder how Case-Schiller weeds out improved properties like this so it doesn’t skew CSI.
Even if the property misses the “improvement” filter, extreme price flucations are down- weighted.
From CSI Methodology:
Although non-arms-length transactions and sales of physically altered properties are discarded during the pairing process, it is not possible to identify all of these sales based on the information available from deed records…
To account for sale pairs that include anomalous prices or that measure idiosyncratic price changes, the repeat sales index model employs a robust weighting procedure…
No sale pair is eliminated by the robust weighting procedure (i.e., no pair is assigned a zero weight) and only sale pairs with extreme price changes are down-weighted.
http://www.macromarkets.com/csi_housing/documents/tech_discussion.pdf
Gorgeous home. Bad timing to add a $3.5m home to Cole Valley/Ashbury Heights, though…and, no view….sigh. When you get to that neighborhood, you at least want a view when you hit those numbers….
Help me figure this out. At $3.5MM I would expect someone buying this would have some serious cash to buy the place – maybe even near outright. If I had that much cash and could afford a place that was 3.5m, why would I live here of all places?
Is this like a “make me move” price on Zillow or something?
Yeah, that seems very pricy. I don’t think there has been a $3M sale in that area without big views. I’d think it would need either the GG Bridge or downtown, or both.
Yeah, if this was last year’s market, I would think it would sit on the market for some time, and without a view sell for $3m or under. It looks gorgeous.
But, given that this is a new year and it is early…and things aren’t pointing in the direction a seller would like…I donno. This is one of those homes that is worth watching.
Yeah, a $3.5m home means the buyer has a stockpile of cash, somewhere. Wall St isn’t doing well right now…so where or where would that money be? In a portfolio that is taking a nose-dive? Hum…that means this year’s $3.5m home, if valued in portfolio dollars, is way more this year than last year….