Sporting a bit of a sweet deco vibe in the living room, 444 Douglas is back on the market and asking $1,295,000. Purchased for $1,100,000 in August of 2002, a sale at asking would represent average annual appreciation of 2.6% over the past six and one-half bull market years for this solid single-family home in San Francisco’s real estate District 5.
And while the sale for $1,100,000 in 2002 closed just 13 months after purchasing the property for $860,000 in 2001, do keeping mind that a bathroom was remodeled, rooms were renovated, and the foundation was bolted in between. But once again, we can’t recall anybody discussing the measured appreciation over such short holding periods as being anything but representative of the market at the time (as it was and still is).
∙ Listing: 444 Douglass (3/2.5) – $1,295,000 [MLS]
LOL. “1 Day on Market”. This “apple” was noticed by poster “in the trenches” (hehehehe) way back in November:
https://socketsite.com/archives/2008/11/a_renovated_singlefamily_noe_valley_apple_gets_picked_1.html
(See post at November 6, 2008 4:29 PM there)
They were trying to sell it since early summer 2008 (at least), starting at $1.495M if my memory is right. Followed the market straight down, and now trying the “1 day on market!” scam to try to lure a sucker.
“purchasing the property for $860,000 in 2001”
“bathroom was remodeled, rooms were renovated, and the foundation was bolted in between” (what’s that? $40k retail?)
you mean that the original specuvestor made out very well?
and that with “the greatest downturn since the GD” we might see this property go back to 2001 prices?. wow, there might be a coupla ways to look at this…
Good eye, LMRiM, good eye.
Can’t wait to hear your rants on mortgage risk premiums 🙂 Happy 2009!
LOL @ “specuvestor”
Can we all start saying specuvestor as much as possible? Nice one, Paco.
i’ll wager that this sells for the previous close in 2002.
Who would’ve thought that you would lose money buying property in SF in 2002 and reselling in 2009?
How far back does your purchase have to go to be safe? 1998, 2000?
Lot size is 1398 sq feet
“Who would’ve thought that you would lose money buying property in SF in 2002 and reselling in 2009?”
that’s cherry picking. but i’ll play; who would have thought that you would lose money buying the s&p500 (in 1970 or ’75 or’80 or ’85,’90,’95,’00…) and reselling in 2009?”
remember that if you bought sfre ten years ago you are still sitting on ALOT more equity than if you had bought the s&p500
during that same time…
“Lot size is 1398 sq feet”
ouch. thats like 25feet by 56feet. with 8foot ceilings…
@Spencer,
“i’ll wager that this sells for the previous close in 2002.
Who would’ve thought that you would lose money buying property in SF in 2002 and reselling in 2009?
How far back does your purchase have to go to be safe? 1998, 2000?”
So, you take your own wager — and we’ve all seen how far off you have been on D5 properties time and time again — as a jumpoff. Next, you pose a hypothetical. This hypothetical takes your guess as valid, and forgets that the property is for sale for 195K more than it was purchased for. Then, you logically extend your hypothetical, and pose another hypothetical.
This is a very nice house on a really great block. The views are from the upstairs and not from the living room. The lot is small but it still has a nice garden because the front of the house comes right up to the street. When I last looked at it a few months ago it needed a little painting and freshening up. I think it’s a simple case of the original asking price being too high. I wouldn’t read too much into this one as an indication of anything more.
“who would have thought that you would lose money buying the s&p500 (in 1970 or ’75 or’80 or ’85,’90,’95,’00…) and reselling in 2009?””
I’m not sure what is meant here – the language is very sloppy.
The S&P is up hugely from all of those dates to 2009, except for 2000 and 2005. Just as an example, the S&P started trading in 1995 around 460, and today it’s 935ish, up just more than 100%. In 1970, the S&P started at 93. That’s not a typo. The S&P is up 1000% since 1970 (not counting dividends, or dividend reinvestment). Some parts of SF real estate has probably done even better, but good luck trying to guess which areas will turn out best over long time periods. I can’t speak for everyone, but I found it very easy to get out of stocks in Fall 1999, get back in in Fall 2002, and get out again by summer 2007 (basically – just broad strokes here; obviously I was trading this stuff reasonably actively in 2007-08).
Anyway, it’s a silly argument (always) because it is comparing one property (or the class of properties that paco now says with hindsight constituted “primo” California) with a broad basket of assets like the S&P or just “stocks”. Compare primo stock market (say, Berkshore Hathaway, or Franklin Templeton) returns over those periods with primo California real estate and I think you’ll reach a different conclusion.
Interesting, though, that this 444 Douglass house (the one for which the realtors are now trying to say the sellers overpaid in 2002) sold for $1.1M on 8/15/2002. The S&P closed that day at 930.25, and it is trading right now as I type at 932.77 – just about EXACTLY where it was at back then!
“I think it’s a simple case of the original asking price being too high.”
The same can be said for any house that was on the market in 2008 and didn’t sell. The original asking price is too high.
The holiday hiatus is a chance for realtors to talk some sense into their sellers before bringing withdrawn homes back to market. If you want to sell, price must be lowered. Not 3-5%, but more like 15-20%.
As houses are brought back to market, it will be interesting to see if they are re-introduced at 2006/2007 fantasy land price points, or something lower. And if the first few re-introductions reflect price discounts, that places pressure on others to follow suit.
We are in the eye of the storm; thing are about to get much worse.
@ Satchel “the one for which the realtors are now trying to say the sellers overpaid in 2002”
That isn’t what the realtors are trying to say. Instead, that is your synopsis based upon your own personal bias.
This realtor said the following. The lot is 25 X 56. I also said that the house is currently on the market for 195K more than last purchase, and I outlined a specious bit of logic by another poster. Paco is not a realtor, but he didn’t say that either. 94114, who may be a realtor, said that $1.495M was too high.
No. It is you who is saying that the house was overpaid for in 2002. Your inference and attachment said it. That statement did not exist until you gave it a voice.
1391 Clayton is also “1 day on market” with a new discounted price of $2,695,000.
That’s a 3.6% decrease. Not nearly enough.
Maybe they can rent it for $15,000 a month?
Sure, fluj. Anything you say.
BTW, did you notice this 444 Douglass house is tax defaulted according to the SF Assessor’s office?
https://services.sfgov.org/ptx/intro.asp
(Click on “Begin”)
The public records show that no taxes have been paid since 11/29/07, and that the status of the property is “tax defaulted”, with apparent arrears of at least $15K. (Click on “Print Bill” to see the status.)
Prospective buyers should always take account of whatever information is publicly available, especially since the real estate industry tries so hard to obscure and misrepresent data. Given how important housing is for the economy as a whole, and how critical house purchase decisions can be for an individual’s finances, it is absurd and unconscionable that a transparent record of pricing data and tools is not widely available. Control of MLS data by the realtors makes about as much sense as highly restricted “nondisclosure” of equity prices prior to the 1930s.
At least there is some disclosure readily available about potential cash flow issues that may impact attainable pricing for prospective purchasers through the tax records. Perhaps one of the realtors on this site will add some value and explain how these tax issues are resolved prior to closing, and what potential pitfalls await a purchaser and where these tax issues would be disclosed (I’m guessing in the preliminary title report).
Looks like there is also a pending complaint by a neighbor relating to the drainage from 444’s hot tub and deck.
http://services.sfgov.org/dbipts/default.aspx?page=AddressComplaint&ComplaintNo=200854637
Buyer should count on spending some money to correct the problem (or fight the neighbor), and discount the bid accordingly.
” explain how these tax issues are resolved prior to closing, and what potential pitfalls await a purchaser and where these tax issues would be disclosed (I’m guessing in the preliminary title report).”
whether or not there is broker obfuscation it all comes out in title. the buyer is not responsible for the seller’s problems.
other non disclosed problems are pretty well covered by california’s lemon laws.
So I point out how you put words in my mouth, and you get on a soapbox about the real estate industry needing to disclose tax arrears?
What are you saying? That realtors should disclose tax information? Tax information is already disclosed by government. Would a good realtor look at any and all available information, and inform client(s) of same? We do.
The tax liens may not necessarily show up in the pre-lim. The FTB is notoriously late to respond. Rest assured the tax lien will be there at close, tho. If there isn’t a surplus of funds the difference will have to be made up. Government liens are first in line.
“Whatever you say fluj” — I wish that were the case. Unfortunately, it is not. People like you put words in my mouth constantly. If you must know it’s probably priced about right. Despite the tax liens, etc, people probably stand to profit. So was it purchased for too much? I don’t see how one could say that. I didn’t.
@ LMRiM
The few times I’ve made offers on homes in the past, it’s been my experience that realtors hold back on revealing unsavory disclosures until after the property is in contract. More than once I’ve seen houses go in to escrow even though the disclosure package hasn’t been fully assembled or distributed. Agents always seem to have time to stage a house before the first open, but compiling a disclosure pack on time is just too much work. Same goes for measuring the square footage of a house or yard, so they just put “N/A” in the MLS, while verbally quoting a sq ft 10-20% higher than actual.
Buyers seem willing to bid on price without knowing all the liabilities involved. Or at least they use to be.
i am not afraid to say that MANY MANY buyers paid WAY WAY too much over the last runup and that they will suffer badly.
but that does not mean that everyone who jumped in the pool in the last few years will be burned. i think fluj’s point about the faults of the property (douglass or arguello) serve to highlight that you will have more trouble selling these in bad markets than better properties will have.
kindof like saying aig and berkshire are both insurance companies. even berkshire is down in this market but it will never be punished the way aig is.
dd,
“Buyers seem willing to bid on price without knowing all the liabilities involved.”
and they should know better. due diligence is the resposibility of the buyer. that goes for madoff investors or house buyers.
still, i think house buyers have more protections built in than stock buyers do.
due diligence is the resposibility of the buyer
Actually, I’d say due diligence is the responsibility of the buyer and their AGENT. Real estate is so complicated that we are willing to give agents 3% of the purchase price to guide us and represent our best interests.
And most agents do the minimum possible. It seems their only goal is to close at the highest price possible and pocket their commission. Usually, instead of advising clients, they just keep their mouths closed.
Maybe this isn’t true of every single agent, but of the dozen or so I’ve worked with closely in the last 10 years, most of them are nice people, with only their own interests at heart, not those of their clients.
Can we please not turn this thread into another agent bashing extravaganza? This site is getting really played out with that same boring refrain. Pretty soon, along will come the true trolls. DD, I have told nearly every client I’ve ever had to pass on a deal or two. The business model for most agents hinges upon repeat business and referral. Shorting people of due diligence is a surefire way to lose potential future business.
Nice place.
Think this place will sell quickly, since this is prime SF. Plus, it’s a nicely-remodeled SFH, and we all know there are plenty of tech workers who can afford $1M+ SFHs these days.
Re: the S&P vs. RE comparison, I’d like to second LMRiM’s comment and say additionally that you would have received dividends ranging 1-2% for the time you held the stocks (taxed at 15%!), while the real estate would have annual costs associated with it of at least a similar amount. Furthermore the stocks (or index fund) would have a trivial transaction fee compared to the 3-6% charged on your real estate investment.
In short, the price changes alone don’t tell the full story.
I’m not bashing; I’m merely stating facts.
Based on some of the under-handed things I’ve seen, if realtors were held to the same standards as officers of public companies, many would lose their license, or worse, be in jail. Misrepresenting square footage so that a buyer will bid a few $100K more is fraud, pure and simple. This is one of the easiest and most common tricks I’ve seen, especially in scenarios where a bidding war is likely (there’s no time for a buyer to get a professional measurement).
And if you’ve told a client to pass on a deal or two, I believe you, but based on my experience you are the exception, not the rule.
In short, the price changes alone don’t tell the full story.
amen
Realtors who misrepresent square footage are foolish. Sellers who misrepresent square footage are also foolish. I have heard that it is the single largest cause of lawsuits in the industry. Especially considering that fact, it is hard to understand why it happens as much as it does.
dd,
“Misrepresenting square footage so that a buyer will bid a few $100K more is fraud, pure and simple. This is one of the easiest and most common tricks I’ve seen, especially in scenarios where a bidding war is likely (there’s no time for a buyer to get a professional measurement).”
“so that a buyer will bid a few $100K more”
that’s a little far fetched. still, the buyer is writing the check and its his/her responsibility to measure the square footage or whatever else if that’s what is important to them. its not brokers who create the feeding frenzy. and just b/c other buyers are jumping off (due diligence) bridges…
Paco’s right. If buyers were really serious about due diligence, they’d do it all themselves. It is their fault if they trust licensed professionals who by law owe them duties.
“So that a buyer will bid a few $100K more…”
that’s a little far fetched
No, I don’t think so. If the sq ft quoted is 200-300 above actual on a property selling at $1,000 / sq ft (or more), it’s easy to overpay by a couple $100K. Especially if there’s a bidding war.
I’m sure if I walked in to Best Buy and stole $25,000 worth of electronics and got caught, I’d be facing criminal charges. Why is real estate different?
Buyers can’t do due diligence fully unless they know all the potential land mines waiting for them. That’s why we rely on experienced agents to (hopefully) represent our best interests.
foolio,
“It is their fault if they trust licensed professionals who by law owe them duties.”
i would put more faith in true ‘professionals’ like doctors,lawyers,accountants and engineers. they are much more regulated, have much higher barriers to entry and the proper malpractice coverage.
trusting a salesman is a little different. still, if you can prove their malfeasance you can get relief. so if your broker says stuff and you rely on that you have a case against them.
here’s an example; broker says “its 1500 sq.ft.” you say “okay, i’m writing that down and basing my decision on that”
now, i can just about guarantee you that if you EVER employed this simple tactic you would hear the broker say “you’ll have to independantly verify that”.
in other words if you tell your broker “i am relying on your knowledge and veracity to guide me thru this process” you will
find out their true colors.
the point remains, if you do not want to be responsible for your
decisions then you can try to hold your broker responsible.
but its not often that people admit that they are not able to do the due diligence. its also infrequent to hear a broker promise to be responsible for decisions that are the check writer’s.
let’s take a poll on this board. how many people have said to their broker “you told me that real estate only goes up so i am relying on that and trusting you”???
anyone?
@DataDude:
Why blame the agents? I think it is:
— The seller’s responsibility to be honest (or face legal consequences);
— The buyer’s responsibility to independently verify (it’s the biggest purchase you’ll ever make, shouldn’t you do your own due diligence instead of delegating?); and
— The city’s responsibility (SF really should send assessors out much more often to measure square footage–to fail to do so means lost revenue and essentially aiding and abetting the seller’s fraud).
In fact, everyone but the agents have some responsibility for this.
What ever it sells for, what scares me is the built-in bookcase over the bed in the photo on the linked listing page.
Who ever decided to do that was not living here for the Loma Prieta earthquake.
@paco:
We’re in agreement. The myth that everyone is capable of intelligently buying a home is just that: a myth.
We’d all be better off if we left the buying to trained professionals who can spend the time and resources necessary to properly assess the risks and independently ferret out any fraudulent statements. People who cannot should just rent their residences.
Real estate data are so transparent, and those nice realtors make all the MLS sales data so readily accessible that I tried to track down some more “due diligence” info for 444 Douglass. (As an aside, imagine if licensed stock brokers argued that exchange sales data is “proprietary” and that there was no need for the public to see all the available sales data without going through them first?)
Permits show that the 2001 specuvestor declared $66K in improvements (including $62.5K just for the bathroom!), and typically these costs are understated (to minimize permit fees). Maybe the specuvestor didn’t do quite so well as it appears (especially after the 13 month holding period), although clearly there is good money in snaring a retail sucker in SF properties. You can see the permits here:
http://services.sfgov.org/dbipts/default.aspx?page=AddressQuery
They almost certainly spent a lot more than paco’s “$40k retail” estimate IMO, and that was in 2001 dollars (but perhaps now with all the struggling contractors, prices have come down? Isn’t deflation great!)
Zillow shows the lot size as 1698 sq ft, not 1398, as fluj posted. No big deal, only 25% off. (BTW, I dug around fluj’s flip, 219 Los Palmos, trying to find the square footage of the lot – since fluj seems to think that is relevant – and whaddaya know, I can’t find it anywhere, not on zillow, not on http://www.219lospalmos.com, not in the disclosure documents linked there…..)
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/444-Douglass-St/15130474_zpid/
Perhaps fluj can point to a publicly available source for sq ft lot size data for 444 Douglass other than Zillow, or are all the sources proprietary? Kinda makes the “buyer should do all the due diligence” argument a little weak.
Last, no sq ft data for the structure is offered on the listing. However, Zillow lists it as 1400 square feet. If that’s right, asking price is $925 psf. It should sell quickly. Eureka Valley houses can get $900 psf, easy. I’m not wrong about that. I know others did. 🙂
So out of curiosity, if the buyer is responsible for finding a property, doing diligence, arranging financing, fact-checking the sellers’ claims, and is then liable for the outcome of their decision (good or bad)….why the hell does a buyer’s agent deserve to make 3%?
On this property, that would be nearly $40,000. Seems like a lot of money to make for an afternoon of driving folks around in a minivan and then moving some paperwork around.
LMRiM, what’s the “front-door” that you’re using at sfgov.org to get to all these goodies? I’ve always felt like there was far more in sfgov.org than I can seem to find…
El-D
This place it to die for! It will definetely sells for bizillions over asking. Afterall, look at that gorgeous facade!! You nay-sayers – be quiet! This is SF. Real estate values always go up!!! Woo-hooo!!
Nice place! Pretty garden, and needs some updating, but very liveable right now. 3/2 upstairs, and the rooms look to be very good scale.
Who the heck buys a condo when you can get this for the same price or a bit more? Great, safe nabe, walking distance to the Castro and to Muni. And no noisy neighbors or HOA to fight with.
And they paid 1.1, added 60K for baths (seems high for a bathroom they aren’t showing in the photos), at least 30K in windows, and probably another 30K for the kitchen. I’ll bet they did another 10-20K in work we can’t know about. So they just want out for their cost. The Realtors will be the only ones making money here. 2002 is a pretty long hold period for making zip, nada, zilch!
What’s not to love? It should go quick. But what’s not to think in 6 months, it won’t be cheaper? So it won’t be me buying it quickly, though I’m sure someone will.
Oh editor, person attack alert.
Laugher,
Really, going out of your way to attack fluj. That is so weak and uncalled for, how old are you again 7?
Perhaps fluj can point to a publicly available source for sq ft lot size data
lot size is easy to find. the city has it on file (you can look it up at the recorder’s office and at DBI). also the title report states it very clearly. square footage of the structure is not easy to find but when you order the appraisal you will get the measurements.
as far as seeing the sales history i would venture that this is not that important. the current prices for the neighborhood and the $/sq.ft. are more relevant.
this is pretty simple-you figure out what you want and don’t want (view,light,neighborhood,#of brm/ba, busy street etc…)
and then you go hunting. the more you see the more you know.
i don’t recall anyone putting a gun to anyone else’s head and the pressure to ‘buy now or be priced out’ is easily withstood.
its like buying a used car. if you want a porsche and your broker shows you hondas get another broker. if all the porsches are selling for $xx and you discover one for $x then you should make sure you bring it to a mechanic (house inspections are pretty cheap).
what i find funny is all the broker bashing. a broker does not get paid unless there is a deal and a deal only gets done if you agree to it. be clear to your broker. tell them what you want.
treat them like a bloodhound. when they point you to stuff you don’t want scold them. make them ferret out the details that are important to you. if you want something that is only to be found on their mls ask for it. if they say no get another broker.
if you think they are lying tell them. if you are doubtful of their veracity tell them you are writing down what they tell you and holding them to it. I GUARANTEE YOU they will hear this. and yes, they do have a duty to you and insurance to cover their mistakes.
duuude,
“So out of curiosity, if the buyer is responsible for finding a property, doing diligence, arranging financing, fact-checking the sellers’ claims, and is then liable for the outcome of their decision (good or bad)….why the hell does a buyer’s agent deserve to make 3%?”
they don’t deserve it. you can write the contract yourself. tell the sellers that you are representing yourself and offer them 3% less. they get less cap gain and transfer tax (win), you get lower prop. tax basis (win). easy peasy lemon squeezy
how did he attack fluj ? he just pointed out that you can’t find something as simple as square footage easily, and sorry if you don’t think sales history is relevant but most of us do.
I would want to know if the house was purchased for 100k less a month before.
“treat them like a bloodhound” so I have to treat RE agents like dogs to get them to not lie to me, and I should write down whatever they say so they won’t exaggerate things ? And you say there is too much RE bashing going on…
Paco,
You obviously have a lot of experience and, as someone who has never transacted RE before, I appreciate the insight you provide on this board. I’m not kidding, I mean it.
Okay, enough of the realtor bashing. Let’s see some predictions!
Spencer said this place will go for $1.1. Tipster seemed to think it would sell for the current asking price of $1.295. I believe LRMIMMIM was dripping with sarcasm when he made his prediction, so I won’t count that one.
I have seen so little sales data in the past three months that I can’t venture a good prediction, but I think I’ll go for the halfway point, about $1.2 million.
And on the topic of languishing apples, how about predictions for 850 Elizabeth, also on the market for a few months and reduced several times? (Sorry in advance if the link doesn’t work.) SFR in Noe Valley, with parking/garage, but some crazy rooms upstairs and downstairs. Asking price is now $1.25 million, I predict… $1.15 million.
http://sfarmls.rapmls.com/scripts/mgrqispi.dll?APPNAME=Sanfrancisco&PRGNAME=MLSPropertyDetail&ARGUMENTS=-N899184927,-N226426,-N,-A,-N16477518
Laughingstock in Marin,
I used the MLS. It showed 1398 and said the building’s size 1761. Look at the pictures. The backyard does indeed appear short, so I didn’t think twice about it.
Chicago Title’s premier service says lot 1698 buiding 1400 … and I think that’s actually reversed. But that wasn’t the point! The point was that it’s a small lot. 1698, 1400, 1761 — all small.
I pointed out the lot’s size, WHY? because it likely has something to do with the house not selling last time around for $1.495M.
You know that, buddy. I’m sorry to have pointed out so clearly that you misrepresented what I said. You did not need to make this into a pissing contest.
YOU WIN! OK?
Sheesh.
Didn’t expect to have someone use that as a soapbox, twice, or to bring up an unrelated property in a strange one-upsmanship dance.
You want to know 219 Los Palmos’s lot size? 2962 feet. 25 X 116. Good size, no? I think I advertise “Large Yard” or something. I am more than happy to provide specific lot size information.
I would appreciate it if you refrained from personal attacks in the future, OK?
This place was actually previously listed for a loooong time. Listed on 5/30/08 for $1,495,000, then reduced several times, eventually to $1,295,000 on 9/10/08 (where, I think, it sat until shortly before the holidays). See:
http://www.sfhouseprices.net/blog/2008/09/10/444-douglass-st-san-francisco-4/
I don’t see why anyone expects a sale at anything near this price now when nobody was interested before the financial system blew up. I suspect they just wanted a new DOM “re-set” and a new pricepoint from which to launch further reductions. I actually really like this street.
Fluj,
annual appreciation of 2.6% over the past six and one-half bull market years is a LOSS.
It is a loss when you counts taxes and realtor fees + insurance + taxes
It is a loss if you count inflation
It is certainly a loss if you include opportunity costs
And it is a huge loss when they could have rented the same propery for 35-40% of the mortgage payment
Just because a property sells for a higher amount does not make it a gain for the owner.
This is a loss if it sells for $50K over asking, it is certainly a loss if it sells for asking and it is a major loss if it sells for $100K below asking (which is where i think it will end up).
Lastly, I was being serious about the comment “Who would’ve thought that you would lose money buying property in SF in 2002 and reselling in 2009?”
I didn’t become a bear until late 03. I was pretty sure that if you bought in 04 it would be a bad
Trip,
Thanks for the data. On the market for 3 months makes it very unlikely to sell at this price.
If this doesn’t sell at 1.295, how is anyone going to sell a million (or more) dollar condo?
I would appreciate it if you refrained from personal attacks in the future, OK?
This would have a little more impact coming from someone other than you. (Maybe I’ll work on a cite list of real personal attacks that you have launched on others on this site, usually appropos of nothing. My favorite one was the interchange – since deleted from the blog – when you launched into Fronzi about an alleged graveyard in one of your fraudster buddies’ listings.)
It would also have a little more impact if it came in the context of a post that didn’t refer directly to me as “Laughingstock in Marin”, lol.
But in any event, my suggestion is for you to take it up with the editor if you think I am making personal attacks on you. If you’ll look back on our interchanges over the past year, you’ll see that I treated you with a good deal of respect at the outset. I still treat you and your posts with more respect than I think you deserve, but that is not saying much. Just my opinion 🙂
Man, OK. Sorry. Have it your way. Opportunity costs, no deductions, the bathroom cost 90 thousand, comparable rent price subtracted, they bought the whole place with cash so 2.6% per annum and forget about the fact that we’re really talking about the down payment. However you want to figure it. I’m over it.
immaturity everywhere these days – comments are turning into a value subtracted forum
nice house. a little small. no appreciation since 8/2002. canary in the coal mine. or maybe otulier?
I’m guessing the former, but time will tell if it is the outlier. Regardless, it is a nice apple. Ideally, there will be more that show the same thing – then we have a trend…
OK Laughing Millionaire Renter In Marin,
Very humble name, that.
“Fraudster buddy”? That individual was not a friend, not at all. Why don’t you understand that repeating and creating unsubstantiated rumor is not revealing, but rather, clouding? There was no graveyard. But the mention of it as one was potentially damaging. I researched the property thoroughly. It’s merely titillation for you hobbyists, but it’s others livelihoods. Or you posting about someone missing one tax payment the other week? and expanding upon it as if the owner was in the poorhouse, when he is anything but and likely not pleased at his persoanal business being sullied? These are real people, real properties, and rumor mongering can take on a life of its own. You’re so arch and yet so limited in your understanding. It’s an odd pairing.
You knew why I mentioned the lot’s size. It was obvious. You then proceeded to pick a fight with me. And you took ultimately took it personal, not I. You revert to pettiness when challenged, time and again.
“nice house. a little small. no appreciation since 8/2002. canary in the coal mine. or maybe otulier?”
You see?
This person, Posted by: poor owner living in potrero at January 6, 2009 2:05 PM, deduces “No appreciation since 2002.”
Clouding.
“nice house. a little small. no appreciation since 8/2002. canary in the coal mine. or maybe otulier? I’m guessing the former, but time will tell if it is the outlier.”
Why do you assume that this house will go for under $1.1M when it is listed for $1.295M?
As it is, it is a very good deal at only $900/sf, and the owners can always simply pull it off the market if they don’t get their price and wait until the spring. Or, even better, just rent it out at $10k/month, because the rental market is very strong.
“Man, OK. Sorry. Have it your way. Opportunity costs, no deductions, the bathroom cost 90 thousand, comparable rent price subtracted, they bought the whole place with cash so 2.6% per annum and forget about the fact that we’re really talking about the down payment. However you want to figure it. I’m over it.”
talk about specious. did you proofread this? it makes no sense. and you didn’t bother to address the real inquiries in my post. I am posting facts and requesting opinions. i don’t understand your behaviour
Oh no, more kvetching about the lack and/or accuracy of floorplan dimensions!
Lets face it folks, this situation isn’t going to change any time soon. Square footage of the structure is going to continue to be elusive. You can rely on numbers published on new properties, but the old ones are hard to find. As paco mentions, the lot size on the other hand is pretty easy to determine (though beware of how dimensions of steep slopes are measured).
For anyone concerned about floorplan dimensions (and who isn’t : its a very important attribute of the property) I’d suggest that they develop well calibrated eyeballs. It takes a little practice. Try this tonight : step into each room in your home and guess how big each room is. Write those numbers down. Then break out your 25′ tape measure and measure the room’s size. Length times width is the basic calculation. For odd shaped rooms, break it down into two or more nonoverlapping rectangles and then add them up.
Then compare your estimates with the measurements. Were you consistently over or under ? Use that knowledge for the next room you eyeball. Rinse and repeat. If you can eyeball calibrated within 10% then you’re doing pretty good.
Why is 10% good enough ? Because that’s as close as you need to get before you decide to make an offer. Ideally before you make an offer you can do a thorough job of measuring the place. You can hire someone to measure but I’ve found that a DIY measurement only takes about 30 minutes for a normal sized home. I just measure and mark down the dimensions on a crude drawing of a floorplan. From that information I can compute the total size in about the same amount of time it takes to down a pint of fine craft brew.
You can even do the detailed measurement after the offer if needed so long as you have a contingency to back out of the deal if you find that the reality of the property does not hold up after your inspection. But that’s a lot more pain for all involved in the deal : better to have the most accurate info before making an offer.
Even if you know that a property is exactly 1306.854747 square feet, other matters become more important in estimating value and hence your offer price. I’d rather have 1200 sq.ft. of floorspace with 10 foot ceilings than 1300 sq.ft. with 8 foot ceilings any day. Same goes for crummy layouts : the greater square footage isn’t much help if much of it is hallways or you have to cross through the kitchen to reach the bathroom.
Tis better to work around the problem of inaccurate or missing square footage data than complain about it.
“…when you launched into Fronzi about an alleged graveyard in one of your fraudster buddies’ listings…”
I laughed so hard at this, coke shot out my left nostril. Well, almost.
I for one like having fluj on the site. He has always been polite to me even though we’ve had our disagreements. I come to a site like this to get varied perspectives. This helps fine tune my understanding of the market.
“Square footage of the structure is going to continue to be elusive.”
Agreed. You’d think if man could measure the size of the moon, getting interior square footage right would be a piece of cake. Especially on recently remodeled properties where scrupulous architectural blue prints exist. Nah, just easier to put “N/A” and quote an inflated sq ft.
If this doesn’t sell at 1.295, how is anyone going to sell a million (or more) dollar condo?
Evidently, with great difficulty.
Here’s a condo apple (still on the tree) in Noe Valley that has some relevance for a discussion of actual, realized returns in SF:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/525-27th-St-94131/unit-2/home/1986968
Sold for $1.349M in 10/06, and now for sale at $1.249M, and apparently languishing at 109 DOM.
That’s already a 7.4% decline from 2006, even if it sells here. No big deal IMO, but it is worth noting that the housegamblers here (and, yes, they were housegamblers as significantly nicer places could have been rented for less $$ than the carrying costs on this place, so they were gambling on appreciation) will lose a minimum of $175,000 in nondeductible personal loss, after selling expense. And it could be much worse.
A small percentage decline can lead to large $$ losses pretty easily at these crazy prices, and that is part of the reason no doubt that there is such reluctance to “take losses” in SF real estate.
I am more interested in the 2000 selling price for that condo: $1.1M (see the sales history in the redfin listing). So, even if it sells today at $1.249M, that would only be 13.5% higher than in 2000, or about 1.6% per year! Still better than the S&P over that period, but I bet most people would assume any investment in NV over the past 8 years would have done much better. Again, of course, it’s still not sold, and we may well see at least one “2000” price soon in NV!
Those windows are cute, but have terrible insulation qualities. It is strange that so much was done including those super fancy counters without replacing the windows which probably would add much more to appearance and comfort. Perhaps custom window replacements would have still been more costly than the other work? Maybe the city said no to the replacement windows they wanted? Just musing.
All the emotions in this thread are really out of place. This is all just property and money and should not be taken personally. Even a great loss or mistake is only that and the right thing to do is get up, face the world with a smile, and keep on moving.
I’m a little amazed at how much attention people pay to square footage. Of course it would be nice to know the actual square footage of a house. But it matters so much more how the house is laid out, how usable the space is, how many beds and baths there are, what the views are like, what kind of sunlight the house receives, how the relationship of the house to the yard works. People behave as if all of this very unique information can somehow be condensed into $/square foot.
For a vanilla condo I can see $/sq. foot as a useful tool. For most houses in SF, its of limited value.
People should make offers based on whether they like a house, and whether it seems like a good value compared to other similar houses in the market.
I would certainly never buy a house because a real estate agent said to me, “this house is a great deal because it is only $X per square foot”. That’s just about the last way I would measure the value of a house.
I agree with the over emphasis on square foot number.
This can be important when you compare an apple to an apple – like identical stack units that slightly grow as you go up because an adjacent mechanical shaft gets smaller. But it doesn’t help when you compare completely different designs.
There are plenty of loft style units of 2500 SF and more with no privacy, where you hear every sound and smell every smell, where with an old victorian of the same size chopped up into 6 rooms you don’t even know if anyone else is even home.
many good indicators of desireability that have little to do with what a broker says.
Most real estate brokerages have the same policy regarding square footage.
Never state the size, as attributed per the brokerage.
Brokerages know this is a common source of lawsuits.
Most marketing materials will have many disclaimers…believed to be accurate, buyers to verify… all over all their marketing material.
Realtors do not measure homes, they point to tax records, condo maps, or appraisers for the numbers they use in the MLS.
The square footage source is noted in the MLS.
Buyer to verify for themselves. Often tax records, the most easily accessible source for square footage, are incredibly inaccurate.
When the tax records and your eyeballs/gut are at odds, leave the number blank.
If tax records state a home is 770 sq ft, and you are looking at a three-story building with
a 25′ x 40′ footprint do not use the tax records. There is an old adage, It’s not the size, but how you use it”, and this is very true in housing.
It’s not a pound of cole slaw at the deli, in the end of the equation is what a buyer offers – what it is worth to the buyer.
The list price for 444 Douglass has been reduced to $1,225,000.
Fluj,
Is 444 Douglass off the market or is it in escrow?
Thanks!
[Editor’s Note: Withdrawn without a sale.]
Looks like it expired Monday and is currently off the market.
Acording to propertyshark, this was purchased for $1.1M in 2002, with an 80% mortgage and $220K down.
They started trying to sell it in early 2008, at $1.5M. Clearly, they’ve chased the market down. If they had been realistic back in summer 2008 and priced it at $1.225M to start I bet there would have been an overbid (over asking!!).
It failed to sell at $1.225M after a month now. I think that’s pretty strong evidence that 2002 pricing is squarely in the cards for this place, and if the owners hang on it’s going to be much worse I bet.
Does anyone know what happened with 444 Douglass? It looks like they chased this listing to where they would have gone underwater on their 2002 purchase and then pulled it.