The almost infamous 76 Caselli closed escrow on 10/24/08 with a reported contract price of $1,900,000 ($679 per square foot). “Completely renovated in 2005 with high end finishes.” And yes, “tipster” liked it (and we remain quite enamoured with those stairs).
First listed by the agent ex-owners earlier this year for $2,558,000. Reduced in June to $2,458,000. Relisted on 8/8/08 for $2,288,800. And reduced to $1,999,900 in September.
Once again, $679 per square foot. On a street “Fluj” concluded could support $900 based on a few past comps. And even “Satchel” thought might command $765. Must have been the paint job. Couldn’t have been the market. And please welcome a new new comp.
∙ Our First And Second Thoughts For The Recently Reduced 76 Caselli [SocketSite]
∙ Eight Eight Eight On Eight Eight Oh Eight: An Auspicious Return? [SocketSite]
∙ From Eight Eight Eight To Nine Nine Nine Nine For 76 Caselli [SocketSite]
I think we can say fluj finally realized the sh*t was starting to hit the fan and could no longer justify his ridiculous justifications of “strength” in SF. He actually picked a good time for himself to leave!
As I often say while standing in front of the sales racks at Macy’s, “Wow! It’s been marked down from outrageous to merely ridiculous”.
I still get the urge to do my Dr. Evil impression, (pinky to lip) “One point nine — million dollars.”
I’ve got that shrinking feeling again….
Must have been the paint job. Couldn’t have been the market.
Ooooh, snap!
How is fluj?
“How is fluj?”
He’s been posting occasionally recently. Maybe he’ll give us an update. (Hi fluj!)
If prices go down another 20%, I’ll be happy to snap it for $1.4M in a few years.
2 elements in pricing:
1 – $/sf
2 – Price point
Anyone with deep pockets could buy a fixer, and blow $$$$ in high-end work to make it a mansion, it won’t AUTOMATICALLY make it a 3M house if there is not enough market for $3M houses in this neighborhood.
“Couldn’t have been the market”
This would have been cheeky before Oct 1, but by now, it’s a little master-of-the-obvious (and more than a little tone-deaf).
I’m surprised *anything* closes under these conditions. Nice silver-bullet comp tho 🙂
Is $900 psf a legitimate 2007 comp for this type of property in this neighborhood?
It’s hard to come up with comps in today’s marketplace, because nothing is selling, but one approach might be to take 2007 comps and reduce by 25%. Other ideas?
I’ve also noticed at least one property in the MLS that just “grew” its square footage by 400 feet this week… How is that possible? Aren’t there rules for what is/isn’t included in the square footage calculation, or is this number inflated a lot?
I also notice lots of properties with “N/A” square feet, even new properties. Can’t they just look at the architect’s floor plans and do some simple addition?
Most sales contracts say “buyer to verify”–so this is something I would verify before making an offer. Ask to see the blueprints.
Baydog,
I’m noticing a lot of data entry errors in MLS over the last year. Some people will document unpermitted space etc.
The blatant lies about square footage are a huge pet peave of mine, and it happens all the time. If it says you should verify, by owner, per agent, or anything like that they are lying. Also, if it doesn’t list the square footage it’s because the $/sf would be outragous.
“I’ve got that shrinking feeling again….”
It’s all very micro.
I’m with dub dub.
Really, is there anyone left who doesn’t think this ol’ bubble of ours is deflating, and picking up steam as it goes?
“It’s all very micro.”
LOL. Oh, yeah, chunkie?
I’ll see your quote and raise you:
“So believe whatever you want. Nice houses on Caselli can grab 900 a foot, easy. I really don’t care if you don’t choose to know and understand that.”
“Frankly, I think it is you who has the incorrect data. And on that note I’ll not be challenged on this issue by the likes of either of you two further. Really. You and your National Association of Realtors mind control serum in Hetch Hetchy conspiracies and Dr. Satchel Paige and his District 4 curveballs. Enough.”
“Once again, if you choose to doubt that Caselli can command 900 a foot for a nice home, when the entire district displays 879 for the past six months, that’s entirely your prerogative.”
And la piece de la resistance:
“If you choose to not believe that Caselli can command 900 and up, god bless ya.”
Good times….
Really, is there anyone left who doesn’t think this ol’ bubble of ours is deflating, and picking up steam as it goes?
IMO there are lots of people who do not think that RE is deflating and/or picking up steam. They may agree that RE deflation is occuring elsewhere, but still many people feel that their little plot of land is holding up. the so-called “the real SF” arguments.
it was just the other day that some poster discussed why his/her neighborhood would never depreciate, partly because (per that poster) everybody in their neighborhood bought with cash and the neighbor just bought a Murcielago or something. This all in the face of a foreclosure that happened ON HIS/HER block!!!!
“They may agree that RE deflation is occuring elsewhere, but still many people feel that their little plot of land is holding up.”
Perhaps there’s a fair amount of denial out there, but I think that even the most bullish among them (ester, fl*j?) recognize that we’re in for a long, hard fall. But maybe I’m mistaken.
The writing on the wall couldn’t be plainer, but you have to open your eyes to read it.
you are mistaken.
even now on TV all I hear is that we have to “get things back to normal”. normal being RE going up 20% per year in perpetuity I guess.
they call it cognitive dissonance.
(for them, not you!)
define “long haul.” Half you guys sound like you are predicting Armageddon.
“they call it cognitive dissonance.”
I think we’re in for a bout of something that was very big in the 70’s called “agonizing reappraisal”
Hey Satchel!
Nothing misses your eye 🙂
I was hoping no one recognizes the quotation. Now let’s hope the editor already left (with his delete button :)) for the weekend… halloween and all.
Foolio,
For the most part, I agree along with the caveats ex Sf-er pointed out. What I find mind boggling is that there is a “real SF”, that there are still people plunking down a million dollars on a remodelled 2/1 or 3/1 in Bernal.
For a long time, the bears may have correctly seen and perdicted what’s coming, but the SF RE bulls have been surprisingly correct too just by virtue of the fact that SF has so far avoided the mayhem that surrounds it.
There may still be one or two good discussions left in there before we can declare thsi horse flogged to death 🙂
I want to hear fl*j’s analysis of this comp. Seriously. Perhaps he has the inside scoop?
What I heard is that the developer’s mother died, and he was counting on the inheritance money to pull him through the not-slump that we’re seeing in SF, but his half-brother is contesting the will so he ended up in a cash crunch. That’s why he couldn’t hang on any longer until things got “back to normal.” Otherwise he would have rented it out for $14,583/mo next summer (a 6.25% gross return on the original $2.8M asking price), and stuck it to all those smart-ass renters sitting on their downpayments.
That’s just what I heard, though …
Half you guys sound like you are predicting Armageddon.
This is so 2005. We are not predicting anything, just observing that the market is correcting. House prices tripled in many places in 12 years and many think this was unjustified.
Obviously the market thinks it too. We had the biggest asset bubble in US history followed closely by the biggest bank failures in US history (surprise!).
ex – sfer;
NAR has to keep their message positive.
I saw a recent poll of homeowners(can’t remeber where, sorry) where 75% beleived that their houses hadn’t lost any monetary value of the past 2 yrs, while indeed the data suggested that 73% of the homes ahd actually lsot value.
There are still a lot of biased and delusional people out there.
spencer,
that is very true, I have stats like this before.
But, on the flip side, it could be this denial, (plus inliquidity of RE), that made the RE correction less seveve than stocks.
It is harder to stay in denial with stocks.
Wow, that was a spectacular house. Look at that kitchen: professional stove, double dishwasher, and the kitchen completely opens up to the back yard. You really would be hard pressed to do better.
The neighborhood is fantastic. And it’s walkable to Muni, yet out of the fray.
It is truly amazing just how fast prices are currently sinking. It shocks even me. And I assume this was offered and accepted before the market melted down and all the layoffs started, which would mean it would fetch even less today.
Although prices may not be dropping this fast everywhere, people looking at Cow Hollow will now of course start expanding their vistas to neighborhoods like this, which will pressure Cow Hollow even more, so it’s only a matter of time before District 7 and Russian Hill starts to accelerate their fall.
One thing is for sure: the owner of the house on 19th Street from yesterday, a block away from this place, is probably not very happy right now!
One thing is for sure: the owner of the house on 19th Street from yesterday, a block away from this place, is probably not very happy right now!
Nor would be his agent who’s selling a high-end redo himself in the same area.
I concur with Sparky, the per square numbers on the MLS are unreliable and therefore so are the $/sqft. numbers.
The most reliable method is to visit the property and either eyeball the dimensions or pull out a tape measure. I always do the former and resort to the latter before writing an offer.
OK, so perhaps there still are plenty of IMBYs out there who think that *their* plot of land is special and hasn’t dropped…even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.
I guess this bear still has a ways to run before capitulation…
@ester:
Why do you think that the RE correction (so far) has been less severe than the equity market correction (so far)?
Once you consider leverage, it’s clear that the losses are much larger on the RE side (assuming you’re long equities, which, again, is not the only way to be in the stock market).
Nice house. Big price, but not as big as before. Yippee for the buyer. Don’t buy homes thinking their short term investments. Next.
Regarding accuracy of square footage in the MLS, Sparky, Milkshake and other concerned Socket citizens.
This is from the “California MLS Rules and Regulations 2008”:
8.3 Accuracy of Information; Responsibility for Accuracy. By inputting information into the MLS computer database, the listing broker represents that the information input is accurate to the best of the listing broker’s knowledge. The listing broker shall use good faith efforts to determine the accuracy of the information and shall not submit or input information which the listing broker knows to be inaccurate.
Lots of wiggle room here, folks. Obviously this document is written to minimize lawsuits for agents and the MLS, not protect buyers.
The MLS Rules and Regs says it’s up to each listing agent to police themselves, with little recourse if a buyer bases their offer price on misleading square footage. The listing agent can always claim they used good faith and didn’t know better.
That’s why it’s important to verify square footage before making an offer, and not wait for the appraiser to waive the red flag once you’re already under contract. When the MLS lists square footage as “N/A” or (blank), something is probably fishy, especially on new construction where it’s easy to determine sq ft from blue prints.
At $800 psf, by fudging the sq footage just 200, that’s $160,000 worth of fraud. If I walked in to Best Buy and stole that much in iPods and plasma TVs and XBox 360s, I’d be locked up behind bars for several years.
Why is real estate different?
Didn’t the government let the banks regulate themselves, and now we’re in this huge ugly financial black hole? Greedy people can never be trusted to police themselves.
So, buyer beware! Verify, before writing an offer!
Thanks, CSS. You are absolutely right that a buyer should verify. However, while a “good faith” error might get a listing agent within the loose MLS rules, it would not protect him — or the seller — from legal liability in a negligence or negligent misrepresentation action by the buyer. That is, I suspect, why many listings simply omit square footage. Sellers should also be careful about anything their agent is putting out to the world as they will also be on the legal hook for any errors.
Seems like a couple of homes just upped their size in MLS. I was at 313 (rhymes with) Pumpkin, and was told house was “about 2800” sq ft and now MLS shows 3200. Didn’t measure, but I don’t think so! Master hardly big enough for Cal King.
Pumpkins can grow giant overnight, but houses?
This is absolutely wrong. Anyone who has taken even a sideways glance at the analysis of bubble, busts, and the how the expand and contract knows that they expand from dense urban environments outwards and then collapse back inwards with those dense urban centers the last to feel the effects of the collapse.
This has been the bears position since I have been reading SS.
I don’t know how many times bears have pointed out the ever shrinking radius of the bulls arguement from “CA is different, to the Bay Area is different, to San Francisco is different, to the “real” San Francisco is different, etc etc etc.”
What has been wrong are peoples expectations to how long it would take for a correction in RE prices to hit in SF. The bulls kept crowing that the bears were wrong and that the worst was behind us when Stockton had fallen 20% and SF had dodged the bullet. The bears kept saying this was not over, SF was still going to take it’s own substantial hit. That RE prices do not collapse like stock prices, that RE takes years to correct not months or weeks other assets.
So finally, the correction is lapping at all our doorsteps and hopefully after we see the reality sink in, even in the “real” SF in 2009, we will have hit some kind of bottom, spend some time bouncing along it and then start the next up swing having, hopefully, learned some lessons from this most recent boom/bust cycle.
2 comments:
The front door is all wrong for that period of house. looks cheap (Home Depot Style), very suburban-tract house look. A door for this house is never stained, and never has a goofy arched style piece of glass in it.
The garage door is equally wrong, again looking like a Home Depot special. There are amazing custom garage door manuf. out there, such as evergreencarriagedoors.com
High quality, not cheap.
For curb appeal and sales appeal, spend money on the right entry door and garage door.
. Anyone who has taken even a sideways glance at the analysis of bubble, busts, and the how the expand and contract knows that they expand from dense urban environments outwards and then collapse back inwards with those dense urban centers the last to feel the effects of the collapse.
Really? Was that how it happened during the housing booms of the 70s or 80s. I thought that in both those eras, suburban properties took off first. During the 60’s and 70’s there was a big “White Flight” effect that was depressing the value of urban properties, sort of the reverse of what is happening today.
I know that is how it happened in the LA area, not so sure about around here.
“The front door is all wrong for that period of house. looks cheap (Home Depot Style), very suburban-tract house look. A door for this house is never stained, and never has a goofy arched style piece of glass in it.”
Thanks noearch! I wanted to make that comment but had to wade thru all the bears to find you beat me to it. Just not quite sure how they completely nailed the inside (like very much!)and made such glaring errors on the front doors (entry and garage). If I were the buyer I would have specifically pointed to the costs associated with the need to swap these out. In this market there is no room for these types of errors.
@ anonN and noearch:
I’m surprised you guys are not addressing the floor plan flaws with this place.
This could have easily been a “3 bed 2 bath up” house – a very highly sought after floor plan!
Additionally, they “crowbarred” that teeny tiny bath at the garden level and put in just average tile and fixtures. This bath should have been twice as big and well finished given the space they had to work with.
And even though this has been pointed out before I will say it again – The wall colors were too wild and they should have cleared their personal belongings out and had it professionally staged – all of their stuff was too distracting…..and in this tough market, it has to be “all about the house”… and not the trinkets, pictures and trophies inside.
And one more thing – much was made here about this house regarding price per square foot. Analyzing a San Francisco’s house “price” according to price per square foot makes about as much sense as determining how much one should pay for a car by analyzing price per horsepower – do you agree?
my focus is primarily on the architecture, as everyone knows. after all, I’m an architect. I’ll largely leaving the pricing, etc. up to the realtor types.
I look for historical accuracy and authenticity, when it relates to a period house such as this; especially the exterior. The interior can be more modern and still respect the architecture.
paint colors on the interior can be easily changed by the new buyer.
personal trinkets and crap shouldnt really influence a serious buyer pro or con. you’re buying a house, not someone else’s junk.
Yeah, this one could have sold for 900 a foot or so if it flowed better and had a 3/2 on one floor. (What’s expected for big money.) Others did. Two or three others in the area are still asking 900-1000 a foot.