Purchased for $551,000 in May of 2005, 151 Alice B. Toklas Place #403 returned to the market in August of 2008 asking $599,000, a sale at which would have represented average annual appreciation of roughly 2.5% over the past three years.
In September the price on the Marquee building one-bedroom was reduced to $525,000, in October to $475,000, and in November to $425,000 where it remains available today assuming a successful short sale.
We should also mention that the person who sold it for $551,000 in May of 2005 bought it for $415,000 in September of 2002. Perhaps it’s time to include that “not included in sale” chandelier.
∙ Listing: 151 Alice B. Toklas Place #403 (1/1) – $425,000 [MLS]
I think the difficulty in selling this may have something to do with the fact that this is a short sale. Also $679/month hoa.
This game is getting to be like shooting fish in a barrel. Here is one I like:
250 King St #1414 (The Beacon) — a 962 sf 1BR
Sold in June 2006 for $795k.
Looks like a foreclosure in July 2008.
Now on the MLS at $548,900 (just reduced) — a 31% reduction off June 2006 pricing.
$520/sf is the new $730. And I agree $679/month in dues is high.
And what’s with the live/work thing? This market is already battered enough to impose this kind of rule.
Alice B. Toklas ? More like Alice B. N. Wonderland. That ceiling is so high it looks like the furniture has shrunk.
I think they sourced that kitchen bar from Johnny Rockets down the street. I find it kind of neat besides that, which means I’d want to rip it out.
Also there is no parking space…
No parking and $700 HOA…wow
No parking space, small-ish 1-bed in the 800 SF range, high HOA, and a live/work restriction? And it’s in a ghetto-y near Tenderloin location on top of the AMC Van Ness (where a friend of mine got mugged). This won’t go for anything near 400k.
$245k (ish) seems about right for this – but then I’m sure the seller and the bank would scoff mightily at that. Then again, the bank will likely have to scoff (alone) at offers like that in a few months…
This was built for an earlier time when apartments were free due to guaranteed appreciation and cheap and easy loans.
The developer could buy a tired office building, rehab it, stick the HOA with an overpriced roof deck (that he probably charged $2mil for) and people paid the high HOA fee (for water and garbage only!) because, why not, you could always sell it next year for more.
The city agreed to let the developer do it on the cheap as “live/work” so that it didn’t count in the stats towards required schools and parks. So the city got all that tax money in return for providing nada, zero, zip services.
So now you get a high cost but otherwise, worthless HOA, no city services, a tiny space with no parking in a tired building and all for the low, low price of what?
There is no more housing shortage, there is, in fact, a glut. You’d be better off renting a 2/2 at the Ritz-Carlton for a year and buying this next year than you would buying this at $400K (under its 2002 price). It will be that much cheaper to make it worthwhile. If something like this even goes for $250K next year, I’ll be surprised.
Yes, I know. That will be well under its 2002 price. You should plan on partying like it’s 1999. I think we’re heading there and beyond. We’re awash in housing. The whole world is. That’s what bubbles do. They misallocate resources until the supply is so great it exceeds even the bubble demand and then the bubble pops.
We weren’t awash in housing in 2002. But the demand is now lower than 2002. So we’re going lower than those prices.
[Editor’s Note: Not quite with respect to the history. The Marquee conversion occured in 1998 and the first sale of this unit was recorded in November of that year at $305,000.]
This one should be called a rotting apple.
but crack is getting cheaper, and it is only a half block away.
I too have trouble with the high HOA. Is this normal for SF?
…returned to the market in August of 2008 asking $599,000
I’m always surprised at how unrealistic people are with their initial listing price.
1998 pricing ($305K) on places like this is not starting to sound so unrealistic anymore.
No surprise here, except to the owner I guess. I hope he didn’t put any real cash down, and that only a credit rating is being imploded here. (The banks’ losses will be paid by the taxpayer.)
I agree that the high home owners dues must be putting people off. I can even agree that the building is not so nice and neither is the neighborhood. But, I’d like to see the poster back up his comment that 819 sq. ft. is small for a 1 bedroom. I must be looking in all the wrong buildings. Explain.
BTW. I’ve noticed for a while that this place is priced a good bit lower than other lofts of the same size.
Oh yeah, thanks for pointing out that it’s got no parking.
Regarding the high dues, I assumed it was due to being a doorman building or something. Is that wrong?
Wow. The combination of that cheap, painfully uncomfortable-looking furniture; the overwhelming sickly yellow cast; the surreal chandelier; and the knowledge that this sits high above the AMC theater in that wretched neighborhood – all of that together simply gives me the creeps! Steven King novels start in places like this…
I took a look at another unit in this building several months back; don’t recall seeing a doorman. Or any other amenities. And the rooftop deck was worthless.
Again, high HOA dues are less likely to be the result of things you can see (like doormen and amenities) as they are the result of insurance, building systems issues, etc. A potential purchaser of a unit in this building would get a set of condo docs, including budgets and past meeting minutes, that would reveal the breakdown of the monthly dues–and the reason for which they seem mysteriously high for this building. I have toured this building, and it has no services or amenities. It’s very strange. It was sad, too, that the unit I view had been abused, so the cabinetry, floors, and counter tops were in far worse condition than years of normal use would justify.
This is a creaky, aging structure. Most likely something happened that had to be fixed and the HOA is getting either getting the money for that from the residents or building the reserves back up or both.
Requirements for both maintenance and reserves were recently updated in San Francisco after Gavin and other City Hall folks had enough of that crumbling tower in the Tenderloin.
This unit actually appeals to me, but not at over $500/sqft. The goofy kitchen would probably have to be redone also, so that work would factor into any offer I’d make. The neighborhood is a bit gritty, but for some people like me that beats living in an area full of uptight busybodies and families who will tolerate only the finest sunshine and rainbows for their loinfruit.
John: by “small-ish” I meant just that it’s a relatively small unit, not that it’s an unusually small (for SF) 1 bed. There are 1 beds in nicer older buildings that are well above 1,000 SF (my own is 1,200).
Moleman: are you saying that the City has some control over HOA reserves etc? For public housing perhaps, but I’m not aware of any ability the City has to regulate how well an HOA funds its reserves.
I can’t find the reference now, but I think there was an SFGate story that covers this. The exact details are unknown to me, but there is a tower in the Tenderloin that was crumbling visibly. The City forced repairs and I thought that also involved some sort of plan to schedule repairs or dictate HOA reserves so that wouldn’t happen again. This might only apply to buildings that have had longstanding code violations which would make more sense and change the context such that what I stated isn’t necessarily relevant.
Why are you guys talking about a live/work “restriction”? Do you really *have* to operate a business out of this location? I thought the world had all agreed that live/work really just means whatever you want it to.
Live/Work is not a restriction – it was created by the City to originally allow artists to live and work in their lofts. Regarding the high dues; I once owned a unit in a condo -commercial building with high dues. There were many in the building that felt the developer who retained the commercial space wasn’t paying their fair share of the cost to maintain the building. I would not be surprised if that wasn’t the case here.
Now listed for UNDER its 1999 price, this place never sold, got foreclosed, and, in spite of being sold for $344K in 1999, was listed by the bank for $379, then dropped to 359, and now dropped 339K. It looks like it needs about $5K in work, so maybe we call it even with 1999.
Chandelier is gone. So is over $200K in the neighbors value: the place sold for $551K in 2005. The neighbors thought they were rich, now all they have is a sinking feeling. Everyone who bought in this building in the last ten years is screwed!!
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/151-Alice-B-Toklas-Pl-94109/unit-403/home/2026418
Maybe the flipper who bought #708 out of foreclosure for $580, spent $120K fixing it and selling it, and sold it for $682 and lost $20K for his efforts will try again. Hope springs eternal.
Sold for $333K, 20% under its 2002 price; and a little less than its 1999 price!