CFAH

651 27th Street
The sale of 651 27th Street over in Noe Valley officially closed escrow today with an MLS reported contract price of $1,195,000. That being said, we have a feeling an asterisk might be involved (i.e., a “confidential” sales price which is recorded in the MLS at list) and we’ll have to wait for tax records (or a plugged-in tipster) to confirm [UPDATE below].
Once again, previously purchased for $1,500,000 in November of 2007 after being acquired in February of 2004 for $1,200,000 and extensively remodeled in 2005 (new kitchen, bath, and master-suite).
As we wrote when it went into escrow, don’t forget those invitations to the housewarming.
UPDATE: Apparently no asterisk so it’s an official reported sales price of $1,195,000 for 651 27th Street. And for the record, we were expecting something higher but below $1,500,000 and not lower than $1,195,000.
At $1,195,000 that’s a drop of 20% from its sale price in 2007 and $5,000 less than its pre-renovated sales price in 2004 for this single-family Noe Valley home.
On The Market (But Not The Public Facing MLS): 651 27th Street [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by 1stTimeBuyer

    So when it’s a confidential sales price like that, does the list price get included in calculating comps for the neighborhood? Is the asterisk noted in calculating comps so knife catchers like me who are going to buy at least know that it was a confidential sales price?

  2. Posted by tipster

    2004 pricing is the new black.

  3. Posted by Dude

    Yeah, but only for a few months. Soon 2004 pricing will be SO last year.

  4. Posted by D

    Amazingly ugly exterior and still $1.2M? Perhaps the buyers negotiated a lower price so they can hire a contractor to put on a new facade.

  5. Posted by lolcat_94123

    Ahh that was the great picture w/ the horrible photochopping and the wacky tweaking. I’ll miss it.

  6. Posted by SFLooker

    Wow you guys are harsh. I like the exterior. Pretty non-descript, casual. So are we saying it went for more than asking or less than asking? When a seller refuses to record the sale price is it to improve teh real estate agent’s stats??

  7. Posted by noe watcher

    There is no asterisk. It sold for full price.

  8. Posted by tony

    >There is no asterisk. It sold for full price.

  9. Posted by diemos

    “Guess Barrak “Socialism is the New Black” Obama can’t save us all.”
    Loan modifications only for owner occupiers with conforming loans backed by fannie and freddie. Little joy for SF homeowers.
    http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/02/key-economic-news.html

  10. Posted by anon

    Looks like a classic fluff flip: buy high, sell low. Way to go!

  11. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    My predication: it end sup selling for $885K
    You missed pretty hard on that one ugly.

  12. Posted by tipster

    There is no asterisk. It sold for full price.
    “Full price”, as in a $300k loss not including renovation costs, sales fees and transfer taxes?

    I’m pretty sure there was an asterisk.
    It was when the seller looked at what this cost him and said, “Oh Sh*t!”

  13. Posted by anonn

    “Guess Barrak “Socialism is the New Black” Obama can’t save us all.”
    It’s a house. one. house.
    ??????????????

  14. Posted by marko1332

    One sale, one data point, which eventually will become several sales, several data points, which becomes a trend; why fight the trend? The market in real SF and unreal SF is crashing hard, and it’s not even the spring season. Maybe we should bet on how large the divergence will be for listings and sales for the coming spring season.

  15. Posted by anonn

    Who’s fighting anything except very odd hyperbolic word choices? Not I.

  16. Posted by Mole Man

    Socialism? How do you get that? From talk radio, maybe? This nation is built on hard work, high productivity, and exchange of capital. Then some bank deals go bad, the government gets involved, and everything gets relabeled as socialism even though politicians are obviously trying to keep the capitalist machine moving. At least what Barack Obama is doing is all in the open and no black budgets or pallets of cash are involved.
    Specifically regarding this property, the key issue is that people overpaid, in part because banks encouraged them to do so. To into even more detail it was the trappings of status and desirability caused people to overbid, and the lack of market oversight and price controls that allowed such a transaction to occur. That doesn’t happen in a socialist context. Indeed, nothing even remotely like that can happen in a socialist context because in a socialist society status and desirability don’t result in big houses in trendy areas, and money does not flow in bursts that result in enormously inflated prices. The whole phenomenon of Noe Valley’s shining ascendence is totally incompatible with socialist doctrines. Impose a socialist order here and this building would be converted, likely after first being removed, into small, badly constructed, minimally appointed apartments for the proletariat. Perhaps this massive chasm that lies between reality and the political rhetoric of conservatives has something to do with their near total loss of power in recent elections?

  17. Posted by chuckie

    “My predication: it end sup selling for $885K
    You missed pretty hard on that one ugly.”
    NVJ, my prediction: ugly is early. In a couple years, he would turn out to be correct.
    🙂

  18. Posted by LMRiM

    It’s always fun to think about what was going on in the world at the time economic decisions were made.
    This house closed in 11/07, coincidentally the first month I ever posted anything on SS arguing that large losses were coming to SF real estate, meaning that the purchase decision likely ocurred in September or October 2007. The stock market (DJIA) was hitting a record high around then, fresh off the rate cutting campaign announced by the Fed.
    The government apologists were in full cry back then, arguing that the miraculous Fed was going to avert a recession, and “inflate away” everyone’s problems. Even if they didn’t succeed totally, foreign demand, weakness of the dollar, “decoupling”, China (also just days away from record highs), etc. would all come to the rescue.
    It hasn’t work out that way so far. Nevertheless, the government apologists are still at it. Now, stimulus bills, St. Barry, neo-Keynesians, Newsweek’s cover story “We Are All Socialists Now”, etc., are going to do the trick.
    Meanwhile, this buyer has just imploded roughly $400K, after costs and expenses. Poof! At least the free marketeers/Austrians see the good in this. Economic actors who couldn’t figure out what was happening have been deprived of some measure of the ability to make foolish economic decisions in the future ($400K less, here), while smarter actors (the one who sold in 2007, e.g.) are rewarded. Over time, this process in aggregate should lead to a better and more rational economy. And that is something to look forward to.

  19. Posted by flaneur

    Congrats to the new buyers!

  20. Posted by Trip

    Whoa, that is a big hit. And Noe Valley has been touted all over as the paradigm strong locale that was bucking the downward trend. I guess not.
    The seller’s timing was awful (can’t say there were not abundant warnings). But on the plus side, he comes out better by selling now than if he held another year, so congratulations to him for cutting his losses. This downward trend is still accelerating and we are a long way before even leveling off, must less turning around.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Articles