The sale of 2155 Buchanan #9 closed escrow on 2/26/09 with a reported contract price of $925,000, a drop of $75,000 (7.5%) since purchased for $1,000,000 in June of 2006.
The sale will be recorded as “over asking!” according to MLS based reports (and reporters).
Checking In On Two Pacific Heights Apples: 2155 Buchanan Update [SocketSite]
Another Shot At A Ripening Pacific Heights Apple: 2155 Buchanan #9 [SocketSite]

12 thoughts on “A Bell Rings And An Apple Closes Escrow In Pacific Heights”
  1. “The sale will be recorded as “over asking!” according to MLS based reports (and reporters).”
    how can we forget, all we ever read here reminds us?!?!?! between reading current events, dealing with the constant gray weather and the real estate news on this blog, i’m freakin’ depressed! are we having fun yet?

  2. Looks like all the regular posters who offered a forecast (Tipster, waiting2nest, Trip, Eddy, Foolio) all were way out on this one.

  3. hello new neighbor. you will be paying 3.5x per month as much as me to live in the same unit. and i am still going to complain if you’re too loud.

  4. This one is surprising. To bid $40K over asking in order to “snatch” it up at just $25K less than the original $950K listing price at which it just sat for more than 100 days?
    I guess there is a little for both bulls and bears with this one. Only 7.5% down from the 2006 price (would the 2007 or early 2008 price had been higher still?), which is not too bad. But bad enough of course that the seller blew up about $130K in capital loss alone. Congrats to the seller for pricing this correctly in this environment and for cutting his losses here.

  5. Doesn’t pass my BS test, for the reasons you provided, LMRiM. Why would someone even offer only 2.5% under the original asking price that it clearly failed to sell for. Something more than meets the eye.

  6. Saying that based upon nothing more than a hunch is tripping my BS alarm, Tipster. Did you monitor the property in any way during its marketing period @ sub 900K? It was a Pacific Heights 2/1 penthouse condo. After the last reduction it was marketed for under 900K, and you’re wondering how it could have possibly been competitive. You smell a rat, do ya? Funny. In order to be better at this hobby of yours you might want to get out to an open house or two every now and then. Just a thought.

  7. Although this sold for more than I thought,, I’m not sure there’s a rat here: on a per square foot basis, I initially thought 795k or so back in November, but then changed that to 925k once I realized it was a 2 bed in Pac Heights (hospital aside). I think slashing the price like they did had the intended effect, got folks excited about it (to the extent that anyone gets excited about RE anymore) especially since second bedrooms here mean a lot. I did see the unit and have to say that it is very nice, very well laid out, and the building was pretty decent but not stellar by Pac Heights standards. Most recently I speculated that it would go for around 800k, so I’m happy to hear that my growing pessimism has been proven wrong at least in this case.
    Having said that, I do think they purchased a depreciating asset, but as long as it’s a home and not an “investment” I wish them well.

  8. Pretty sad when a broker has to come to the defense of a sale at 7.5% under asking. Must be tough out there.

  9. “Pretty sad when a broker has to come to the defense of a sale at 7.5% under asking. Must be tough out there.”
    Is that what you understood from your reading? Seems like I said a sub 900K listing would generate interest and that there wasn’t a rat is all. Seven point five percent under asking is your own trip, “Anon.”

  10. The sale of 2155 Buchanan #9 closed escrow on 2/26/09 with a reported contract price of $925,000
    Sf Chronicle just published this sales at $900K, or 10% below its 2006 price.
    Only down 10% from what looks like an (almost) peak 2006 price. I think the seller got lucky here. Assuming 7% in total transaction costs (initial closing costs, agent commission and selling expense in 2009 and transfer tax liability), the seller was only out about $170K in nondeductible loss – not too bad considering the magnitude of the bubble and the very high price paid for this apartment. Congrats to the seller for cutting his losses here.

  11. Six months ago to the day, paco posted this:
    “very interesting and selective data mining on the favorite fence sitter site…
    riddle me this tho…just b/c some got caught up in the frenzy of the past few years does that mean i’ll be seeing these kinds of price declines in the places that i’d actually want to live?
    some idiots paid half a million bucks to live on the foggy hwy?
    and now the prices are down by a third? so what?! where are my price declines in d5,d6,d7,d8?
    oh, you’re telling me the dark and damp condo is now available again in those areas? c’mon socket site, lets see something good.”
    Posted by: paco at September 16, 2008 9:02 AM
    I hope no one will begrudge me this little trip down the memory lane 🙂 Down 10% and the ride is just starting!

Leave a Reply

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