Asking $1,349,000 alongside 4588 17th Street which was asking $1,399,000 and sold for $1,390,000 in May, 4590 17th returned to the MLS in September asking $1,299,000.
The sale of the three-bedroom condo closed escrow yesterday (12/16/08) with a reported contract price of $1,255,000.
∙ One Of The Four Copper Clad Condos Atop 17th Street Hits The MLS [SocketSite]
$725 psft is the new $1000, but to be honest, that was a home run for that location.
The guy next door only lost about $12K per month since May. Not bad for this market.
one would guess these units are comparables.
if so, that would mean that they “lost” about 9.8% over the last 7 months.
on the one hand, not horrific. on the other hand, it comes out to $135,000. that’s the problem with SF real estate. small % declines can end up being big bucks.
however the 1.255M place was an interior unit right? and the 1.39M place was on the end? there is likely some premium to having one non-shared wall, although I doubt it’s $135k worth.
overall, I’ve never been a fan of these due to their location. but that’s immaterial. there’s nothing about them today that wasn’t true 7 months ago.
I will be the 1st to admit I was wrong on this property. i thought it would sell for much less. I do however think that the buyer will be a bagholder if he/she doesn’t hold for 8+ yrs
Wow. Congrats to the seller/builder.
7% in 8 month, that’s about 11% annual decrease. In line with what I think is happening: a steadily deflating balloon. It’s not all happening overnight but it’s happening nonetheless. 3 more years of this and SF will become affordable again to its median dwellers like in the late 90s.
I think this has been discussed to death but I’m assuming the copper is going to change to the green puke color over time. They better sell before that happens. Also that part of the city is always gray and windy.
At a closing price of almost 1.3 million the developer made out very nicely.
patinated copper is v.v.beautiful imo
Willow, if your own idea of puke is the very bright green of oxidized copper, I suggest you consult a doctor or better yet stay away from Absynthe.
I’d be interested in seeing renderings of the building with this new color. It should go well with the rest, imho.
If the following sounds familiar, that’s because you’ve seen it dozens of times over the last 18 months.
This condo is not the same as 1290. It is smaller, and it doesn’t appear to be corner, but interior. Seizing upon this and extrapolating relative percentages outward is a crock. The editor set the tone and voila. Boo bird city. Typical. And it makes me say the same thing. The thing about 10 of you just said wasn’t my recurring POV.
To wit, this is not a sign of weakness, but rather a sign of relative strength.
That is not the same thing as “buy now or be priced out forever” OK?
Still lower than asking. Still less than the 800-900 that were expected of new “edgy” construction. Still took more than 6 months to sell.
“a sign of relative strength”
fluj, this is the kind of thing you do. What the heck does “relative strength” mean? Not as bad as Stockton? I’ll grant you that. You’re not stupid and you know what game you’re playing. You use the word “strength,” which has a clear connotation, but in such a wishy-washy manner that you can always later deny that you said anything of the sort. As far as I can tell, condo asking prices per sq. ft. are at a 2-year low in San Francisco, and not selling. Since they are not at a four year low and not selling, I guess that is “relative strength.”
fluj:
I also highlit that the listed unit was an interior unit compared to the other unit.
as for size:
4588: approx. 1807 sq ft
4590: approx. 1719 sq ft
difference: 89 sq ft.
using the sales figures for May, 4588 sold for $769/sq ft.
thus $769 x 89 = $68,441 can be attributed solely to sq foot differences.
$1390000 minus 68441 = $1,321,559
So you could say on a price per square foot basis, 4590 should have been “worth” $1,321,559 back in May, NOT including the fact that it has 2 shared walls.
it sold for: $1,255,000.
so is it worth $1,321,599 minus $1,255,00 or $66,559 to have one less shared wall? (honest question)
if not, then 4590 depreciated by whatever amount is left over.
one way to figure it out: what were the sales prices of the other 2 units (one of which was interior and one exterior unit). this would give us an idea of the premium to have one vs two shared walls.
4588 sells for $9K under asking seven months ago.
4590 sells for $96k under asking yesterday.
that’s a sign of “relative strength”? Only in the world of realtors and fluj.
I’m with paco – the oxidized copper look is classic. On this building though? That remains to be seen.
OK, the oxidized copper look is a matter of personal taste, but I do have to ask if it is appropriate for this type of construction? Only time will tell!
Agree with Fluj that considering the current employment climate the sales price is pretty amazing and overall this is a positive.
The way you guys simultaneously bash, AND give such credit to realtors or whomever drove the pricing is funny. Such emphasis on “asking,” for a spec build, new product, and untested location. Then there’s “725 is the new 1000” from Tipster … for a 17th and Clayton location? Um, no. And 800 to 900 psf was expected? By whom fronzi? Because it wasn’t the person who first set the price.
Go look at million dollar condos, ever, on 17th. There are six.
anon,
I’ll take a stab at what fluj is calling relative strength.
In the boom everything was getting bought up at the top dollar prices. At the end of the boom, we are seeing lesser propeties see bigger hits than ideal properties.
These condos are not in an ideal location.
They have tiny concrete yards that face into a building.
They are on the corner of a very busy intersection.
Condos have taken a bigger hit than SFHs.
It’s winter.
The sale price was still $730/ft, down from $769/ft
Ex SFer, I’d place the premium not on shared walls so much as on light+air, likely extra closet space and probably better views. Hard to put a fine point on those sorts of amenities, but would some folks think 66K reasonable? Can’t say I haven’t seen similar. Nor would anybody inclined to be fair.
I don’t know about “a sign of strength”, but as I said before, it was a home run for that location. fluj’s points are well taken.
However, there is a flip side. After that many months on the market, one has to wonder what might have been wrapped into the sales price? 3 years of HOA fees? Upgrades? Did the developer qualify and finance the buyer at a below market rate and below market down payment in order to protect the comps on the other units.
Having seen the $100K+ cash back deals during the boom, the one thing I’ve learned is that in the shadowy, wild west world of real estate, up can be down.
Up might be up, but you just never know. Take it as one possible murky data point.
Never trust this industry. There is a lot of pressure right now to show a “bottom”.
Tipster, your “flipside” comment is pure rationalization. Why you think it is copacetic to post totally unknowable things, yet time and time again demand precision from others is not known.(I wouldn’t have said anything about if you had not lead off with a ludicrous and derisive “725 is the new 1000.”)
Remember the good old days when a 10% drop was viewed as inconceivable by your local real estate expert and everyone else who bought a condo with
80/10/10 financing from CW?
Next year after a second consecutive double-digit percentage drop realtors will point to a $900,000 sale and say “it is still a lot of money”
Rember, it is always a good time to buy or sell ™
And 800 to 900 psf was expected? By whom fronzi? Because it wasn’t the person who first set the price.
I don’t know if people expected it or not, but the original asking price was $785/sq ft.
given that in the past there were often overbids it isn’t a stretch to think that the developers were hoping for higher.
Ex SFer, I’d place the premium not on shared walls so much as on light+air, likely extra closet space and probably better views.
I must have been mistaken. I was thinking that 4588 was the far right unit, and 4590 was the second one to the right.
was 4588 the far left unit (the one on the corner)? and 4590 the second to the left?
because the far left unit does have substantially more light and also much better views being on the corner. the far right unit really has a relative lack of windows and no improvement in view.
anybody know the exact addresses of the 4 units?
I may think it’s copacetic to posit unknowable things for people to think about, but it’s so pathetic when someone uses data they actually have to mislead.
Glad to have you back, fluj.
Tipster, your “flipside” comment is pure rationalization.
Tipster, please apologize to fluj, you stepped on his turf. No one else has the right to rationalize.
Misleading, how? Like framing this property as some sort of failure? Or minutely examining price shift percentages between non-identical units?
Can’t take credit for that “pathetic” data manipulation myself. But I agree.
So what about your 800 to 900 comment, fronz? Should I chalk that one up to what I believe, “everything fronzi says is utterly uninformed, incorrect, an out and out lie, or a searching platitude” and call it a day?
Amon @ 11:07, relative strength is the opposite of relative weakness. Relative to points in time, other regions, what have you. I think you grasp relative weakness.
Ex sfer, you’re right. I thought the pics looked like the views were better, but it is too hard to tell. So I guess we’re only talking about 90 feet smaller size.
I saw a funny expression on a blog somewhere:
Goldilocks Realtorspeak: Not too honest, not too dishonest. Juuuuuuuusssssst right.
Did you? Or did the other you so modestly enjoy referring to in the third person? So confusing with you!
Yet another uncalled for comment by our dear real estate salesman.
I am not pulling the 800-900 out of nowhere. I am referring to a comment by exAgent in the original post by SS.
I can’t believe I wasted 30 seconds of precious time writing this reply.
I love these units, but the prices give me vertigo. I think the copper will accent the stucco nicely, but that remains to be seen and certainly isn’t a common juxtaposition.
During the last downturn, if I recall correctly, there was a building very close to this on 17th that sat on the market festering for a very long time–something like two years or so. This isn’t a location for everyone, but it is a short walk to many things and all the units have some views.
The conflict between fluj and others seems like a point of view thing. Fluj is talking about market moves and looking at fine grained details. Others are calling out market overhang and talking in vague terms about how prices should move downward over time and where they might end up. Even that involves a lot of disagreement. For example, some here are expecting that -10% per year will continue, but I am expecting 2009 to bring a sharp downward move followed by a long period of relative stagnation. That is what happened in the early nineties. All the harsh downward moves were done with by 1992, but the market didn’t start moving up until 1996 or so. Just a few percent per year off the value adds up after a while.
@fronzi, “Yet another uncalled for comment by our dear real estate salesman.
I am not pulling the 800-900 out of nowhere. I am referring to a comment by exAgent in the original post by SS.”
Actually, you attempted to rebut my point by cobbling together somebody else’s quote and your own editorial note. You took “800 to 900” and added your own notes of “took six months” and “under asking.” It wasn’t as if any of those points actually challenged my point, which was the relative historical performance of $1M+ 17th street condos. Basically, what you said had nothing to do with what I said, and now you refuse to own that. So once again we see you posting when you’ve got nothing. Do me a favor and if you want to challenge me on something specific at least try to actually debate with your own thoughts instead of someone else’s quote as straw-man litmus. And you wonder why you annoy.
my, my. some of you sound like a bunch of self righteous drag queens fighting over the same purse.
what a bunch of whiners. doesnt do much to help shore up the sagging image of realtors.
Another vote of confidence for the pastel green patina of oxidized copper. It’s inevitable anyways so why not accept it ? The bright shiny new copper penny original look is the best but that can only last a month or so.
What looks bad is the dull brown stage in between. It looks like some sort of some cheap brown vinyl and can remain in that state for years. Sometimes a chemical wash is used to accelerate the oxidation and bring on the green patina earlier.
But what I really want to know is whether anyone still thinks that tweakers are going to tear the copper siding off in the middle of the night and recycle it for cash.
Fluj – What do you mean by “relative strength”? Relative to surrounding counties? Can you give us a couple of apples-to-apples properties in Marin, San Mateo, or Alameda counties that declined by more than 10% in a span of 7 months?
I’m not saying they don’t exist – maybe they do. I’m just saying that you shouldn’t make assumptions about other areas unless you actually have detailed knowledge about exactly what is going on there. Aren’t realtors the ones who like to say that all real estate is local?
“Fluj – What do you mean by “relative strength”?”
I would interpret that as meaning, “Ya it’s gone down a little but nowhere near as much as you bears were going on about.”
Why do I need to put a fine point on a relative term? It’s pretty doggone clear. First, I was speaking about this property. One could argue this property sold at a historical high, actually. That’s why it was ironic people were saying the opposite, and projecting percentage drops outward. But if you must, go with diemos’ take. Your standard is precisely the counties that SHOULD be in the SF area. Their relative strength in pockets (Novato, for example, has been harder hit for some time now) is also apparent, compared with say, California, over the past two years. Too bad there are farther out exurbs in the Shiller MSA.
More signs of relative strength in the SF market. DataQuick’s sales numbers for November are out. While the Bay Area as a whole saw median price declines of 44.4% YOY, SF saw a decline of only 20.5%. As has been noted here for a while, SF is seeing the same declines as the rest of the area and the state, as one would expect, but it is running about 6-12 months behind. For example, the June ’08 numbers showed that the Bay Area medians were down by 21.7% while SF was down only 5.4%. Note that SF’s declines in sales volume are the highest in the area — which is what correlated with the big downturn in other counties. Equally noteworthy is that even as sales volume is up YOY in neighboring counties, median prices continue to plummet.
http://www.dqnews.com/News/California/Bay-Area/RRBay081218.aspx
And yes, I know, median prices are a poor indicator of strength or weakness (but they sure were touted as an indicator of strength three years ago).
Why do I need to put a fine point on a relative term? It’s pretty doggone clear.
Sorry, it’s not. From your last post, all I can conclude is that you mean that SF prices are still higher than prices in surrounding counties, and that prices in SF have not yet declined as much as in surrounding counties. And maybe that prices in nicer areas of SF/Marin are higher than prices in Bayview/Novato. None of which anyone on this board is seriously disputing. So where’s the beef?
If you’re claiming anything more than this, please come out and say rather than beating around the bush.
Re: median it is interesting to note that since 9/15 the mls SFR sales total 504, and 144 of those sales were from D-10 and Oceanview. That is 28.5 percent from areas that have bottomed, and are now under conforming limits by and large.
Could this longterm turn out to be even more southward gentrification?
@gmh,
This was touted as emblematic of SF’s 11 percent drop as of late. It is not that.