45 Rosewood
Purchased for $1,589,000 in June of 2006 and then remodeled, 45 Rosewood Drive is back on the market up in Monterey Heights and listed for $1,595,000.
While the listing notes “A dream home!” we have a funny feeling zero appreciation over the past two and one-half years and after a remodel isn’t exactly the kind of American dream many were recently sold. That’s assuming a sale at asking of course.
Then again, perhaps they’ll get 42 offers.
∙ Listing: 45 Rosewood Drive (4/3.5) – $1,595,000 [MLS]
CBS Calls It A “Real Estate Rebound In San Francisco” [SocketSite]

243 thoughts on “Can You Be More Specific On The Kind Of Dream? (45 Rosewood Drive)”
  1. You might want to just check out this home. After 25+ years in real estate, many of my clients HAVE dreamed of owning a home like this-In a great neighborhood…has both wonderful entertainment space and private space…a nice kitchen where everyone can hang out…space for an au pair/extended family/guests…great yard space for kids/dogs/gardening. Yes, there have been changes in the market over the years but this property in those few years has had the addition of living space and a nice remodel to the home as well. It is worth taking a look…it just might be your dream home! Hope to see you all there!

  2. Where I grew up there’s a dodgy ‘hood commonly known as the “Dream Homes.”
    I guess the developer who laid it out in the 50’s named it — and it probably was dreamy for a few decades.

  3. This is a really nice neighborhood. I lived basically around the corner from this place from mid-2002 through mid-2008. I rented a larger 4/4 with much nicer views than this place (I know almost every foot of this street), and mine was remodeled in the mid- to late-90s with a granite kitchen, double wall oven, subzero refrigerator, etc. Rent was $3100/mo.
    Back in mid-2002, places around here were going for well over $1M – about $1.2-1.3M for places almost identical to the one I rented. Today, although there is an occasional surprise high sale (e.g., 1285 Monterey, which was remodeled and recently sold for $1.6M), $1.3M-1.4M is more the norm for these sorts of places. A recent example would be 10 Fernwood, 3000 sq ft and remodeled, which just sold for $1.32M in foreclosure after selling for $1.75M in 2004. (SS featured 10 Fernwood, which is only a few hundred feet from this 45 Rosewood place).
    Although other neighborhoods peaked at different times, I’ve always maintained that early- to mid-2006 was THE peak for around Monterey Heights, and it’s no surprise that the sellers here are going to have to “give away” the entire value of the renovation (at a minimum). This is essentially the same situation as 135 Fernwood (also featured on Socketsite), where the specuvestors “overpaid” in late 2005 ($3M), did an extensive renovation that included adding some space, finishing over 1000 sq ft and redoing the entire 6000 sq ft to a high standard, and now cannot sell (they have been trying for almost two years, starting ay $4.3M in mid-2007 and now down to $3.3M).
    Further evidence that early 2006 was THE peak insanity in this neighborhood would be 1260 Monterey, which was a total fixer and was listed at $900K in early 2006, only to generate a bidding war up to $1.6M!! The specuvestor had to redo everything, and failed to sell at a dreaming price of $2.5M.
    I have to agree with Debbie – this is really a wonderful place to live, and it’s not as foggy as its reputation. There are probably 200 days on average when the skies are totally clear, and only about 45-60 when fog lasts all day.
    $1.6M sounds really high. Maybe it’s nicer on the inside than I can tell from the pics, but I’d say around $1.4M would make more sense (that builds in a $200K premium for the renovation over what a more desirable but only lightly updated property like 120 Fernwood just sold for – $1.2M).

  4. Another (perhaps) useful “comp” for this attempted sale is 1200 Monterey, which has been listed for months (DOM is wrong), starting at $1.6M and now down to $1.47M asking:
    1200 Monterey is a nicer house IMHO, larger, and on a corner. Also, 1200 Monterey has nice ocean views, which I don’t think the north side of Rosewood (45 Rosewood) will get. The downside of course is that Monterey is a busy street. It’s divided there, though, and 1200 Monterey is literally at the top of the hill and just after a stop sign, so the traffic is really not very bad at all and many families with kids live on Monterey around there. All in all, if 1200 Monterey with panoramic views can’t get $1.47M, I don’t see any chance that 45 Rosewood could get more than $1.45M, but I guess we’ll see.

  5. I actually agree with both Debbie and LMRiM on this one.
    I know many people want to live in Nob Hill and Soma and Noe, but I really like this neighborhood. And this house (by the pics) seems very very liveable.
    I never talk about pricing because I have no idea about that stuff, but I really like this place except for the hideous exterior and the garage-in-front situation.
    the exterior could be easily remedied. to me it looks like they were going for (but failed at) an English Storybook cottage look with those wood slats?
    exterior could be converted quickly to another “motif”.
    garage is a harder matter.

  6. Nice house! Maybe I’ll have to move away from the freeway….
    How is this not an apple? Do we only “apple tag” rotten foreclosures? =]
    [Editor’s Note: It’s been remodeled. And if you peruse our achieves you might just notice the vast majority of our apples are not foreclosures and Noe Valley apples once showed appreciation.]

  7. At 5%, your mortgage is 6500 per month, or $3250 after taxes. Property tax is $1600 per month. Because of the limit on deductions for most people in the 50% bracket, my rule of thumb is to consider the property tax not deductible (even though it is) and the taxes usually work out to about that. Insurance will run $400 per month and add in $400 per month for maintenance. That puts this place at $5650 per month.
    Rent might be as high as $4000 on a good day. So you are “throwing away $1650 every month on non-rent”.
    I just don’t understand how people could justify buying by saying they were tired of “throwing money away on rent” when you have just an absolute clear cut case of “throwing money away on non-rent”.
    I could see it if there was a chance at appreciation, but there really isn’t any. Prices are trending down, and news flash: the baby boomers will be selling their homes – even without a bubble, real estate prices weren’t going anywhere for the next ten years. With the loss of stock market wealth, those sales will now accelerate. The boomers who weren’t going to sell because they didn’t need to are now largely going to sell because they have to.
    So why throw your money away on non rent? Even at 1.4, it’s a bad deal. And locking in the price because rents might rise ignores the fact that wages won’t go anywhere for years, and therefore, rents won’t rise (and will likely continue to fall) either.

  8. [Removed by Editor]
    But I digress…
    [Editor’s Note: That you did. And a quick reminder to attack the arguments and not the individual.]

  9. “we have a funny feeling zero appreciation over the past two and one-half years and after a remodel isn’t exactly the kind of American dream many were recently sold.”
    Have you seen a physician about these funny feelings? You might want to consult a snarkologist. Seriously.

  10. tipster,
    About the actual costs of owning, I think you are overstating the cost of insurance, but way understating the true costs of the mortgage. 5% on $1.4 (or $1.6M) isn’t happening, and even if it did, only $1M is deductible ($1.1M if you wapo a HELOC into it I guess). As you note, even at the 50% bracket, you don’t get 50% tax benefit, but this has more to do with the interaction between state taxes and federal taxes (state deductions like mortgage interest reduce state tax liability, which coordinately lowers the federal deduction for state taxes paid).
    Bottom line, especially for non-W-2 earners (like our family), the rent to buy ratios have been very compelling in favor of renting, and that’s been true since mid-2002 when we got there, and is still very true today.
    Rent might be as high as $4000 on a good day
    You’ve got that right! In fact, the large 4/4 right at the end of Rosewood (I think it’s address is 89 Rosewood, but I can’t remember for sure) was empty for at least a year with a wishing rent of $3900 scrawled on a sign in the window (in 2006/07 iirc). In fact, here is a picture of it (note the rent sign in the pic – not sure if it’s an old picture or if it’s back for rent):
    BTW, that rental will have much nicer views to the southern hills and ocean than 45 Rosewood, and is a corner house.
    Rents are next to nothing, so long as you find a long term owner who pays nothing in property tax, which isn’t too hard to do. We knew a number of families renting nice places out there for $2500 to $3500 when we lived there. Same situation now in Tiburon. Prop 13 is a wonderful gift for renters who don’t want to live in the “glamour” nabes.

  11. Question on a similar topic… Please as many of you chime in as possible:
    Since we are talking apples…
    What is a fair price to pay today for a single family home in the city vs what that same home sold for one year ago, assuming one year ago ( Spring 2008) was the top of the market in SF. The house sold for 1.8mm in a “B” neighborhood. And we are talking a true apple, so no cosmetic improvements or anything. Is it worth 90% of last year’s price? 80%? Be honest. Editors feel free to chime too.
    Thanks Everybody

  12. curious – I’ll say about 20% off in many “B” neighborhoods, from peak, is about the right “FMV” for a SFR. That would be appropriate for a neighborhood such as Monterey Heights imo, and I think the data more or less support that (it’s tough to generalize, as many houses are pulled off the market, and the ones that do go for less than 20% off peak tend to have some “issues”). Perhaps only 15% off. But the idea that prices have only fallen 5-10% apples-to-apples is fantasy.
    I do think these places all have another 20-25% to fall, though, so I’d be patient if the money is important to you.

  13. I’m thinking “B” means not top of pac heights, but more like Western NOPA, Upper Haight, Inner Sunset. Thanks

  14. The A,B, & C neighborhoods will reveal themselves in the pricing– ultimately for a neighborhood to survive a major downturn, the residents need to have been financially prudent as a whole. We really never know our neighbors’ financial situation until something like this credit crisis hits. If a neighborhood is overwhelmingly filled with desperate sellers, things will not turn out well no matter how good, nice, and law-abiding the residents are.

  15. around the corner it looks like 340 St. Francis went contingent this weekend after dropping the asking price to $2.2..after 250+ DOM, looks to be $595/ft² which is a nice entry point on an ok property.

  16. I saw that, Geo. $2.2M for a renovated pretty big place right on St. Francis Blvd (I’d guess the only better address would be above the fountain) really puts the $2.2M paid for 25 Mercedes in 2007 into perspective. St. Francis seems to be holding up pretty well, but it’s clearly off from a few years ago.
    Any guess as to selling price for 45 Rosewood? I’d say $1.35-1.4M, which is a little more than a nicer property (but not updated) like 70 Ravenwood went for, but less than a much nicer place/location like 154 Maywood went for ($1.5M, but that was back in 4/2008 – it’d be lower today I’m sure).

  17. Hey sparky-b (or is that “c” these days ;)) – I see that house that you mentioned on occasion in Mt. Davidson Manor closed, 200 Kenwood Way. closed. (Sort of OT, but it’s at least close to this Rosewood Drive place, and not too many people on SS seem to care about these neighborhoods except sparky, myself and Geo.)
    The Chomicle published the closing price at $840K, or $285 psf. The listing still shows contingent on redfin:
    Puchased for $1.058M in 06, and then renovated. Obviously something went very wrong in the remodel, but I’m sure the market going south didn’t help matters.

  18. You certainly spend a lot of time researching property within a city that you do not reside in, nor purportedly plan to ever return to. Why is that?

  19. 154 Maywood was about $493/ft², so if they are comp, that would put this 45 Rosewood in the $1.2mm range tops…

  20. Well, Geo, then 45 Rosewood is going to have some trouble. I was in 154 Maywood – spectacular view. One of the best I’d ever seen in Monterey Heights, and I had one of the better views myself (in the place I rented). Maywood is also a nicer street imho. The house was reasonably nice, as well. Not a whole lot of curb appeal, though (not that 45 Rosewood has too much either), but you’ve got to believe that the south facing lot and unobstructed ocean view is worth a good bit over the northern side of Rosewood.
    Here’s the pfd flyer for 154 Maywood (it went $100K over ask in two weeks back in 2008):
    It’s just amazing that 45 Rosewood went for $1.6M in 2006, pre-remodel (and expansion). I really think that early- to mid-2006 was the peak bubble insanity right out there. It was pretty clear that values were dropping by the beginning of 2007 (at the latest) if you were tuned in.

  21. All in all, if 1200 Monterey with panoramic views can’t get $1.47M, I don’t see any chance that 45 Rosewood could get more than $1.45M, but I guess we’ll see.
    It’s looking more dicey imo fo 45 Rosewood. 1200 Monterey just lowered its ask to $1.45M:
    More importantly, 1200 Monterey is also for rent at $6500/mo (which is laughable). The pictures are nicer in the rental listing, and show the nice views you can get in this part of SF:
    The proper rental price for a place like 1200 Monterey imo is $4000, perhaps $4500 if a short term tenancy is ok.

  22. 1200 Monterey is running $512/ft², on a corner lot with a great view, too bad monterey is so busy, though not so bad in that section. Seems like an ok price point there to start a serious negotiation if you like the house. $450/ft² and it seems more interesting.
    you also have 135 Terrace just on the market at $718/ft², which is a bit steep, with some sort of plans/permits to spend more money to expand it and 20 Santa Clara just came on the market as well.

  23. On the Monterey rent ask, I think $4000 is too cheap for 2800 ft² with those views. $6,500 is too expensive too, but $4,500 – $5,000 would seem to be fair as far as I can tell.

  24. Geo, I’d think 10 Fernwood is a comp for 45 Rosewood. Better street, better view, but probably not as nice a house. It sold for $1.32M recently (after foreclosure – last sale 2004 for $1.75M), or $435 psf. Some of the square footage was at the back of the former basement/garage level, and it was a foreclosure (but house was in nice shape – I was in it), so the $450 psf number you mentioned makes sense for 1200 Monterey.
    I’d guess higher (than $450 psf) is appropriate for 45 Rosewood (smaller house so higher $psf, better street than Monterey, but no view), but that is not getting you anywhere near the $1.6M wishing price. I’ll go with a guess of 20% off the 06 price (roughly what I think the nabe is down) + $50K additional for the expansion/remodel = $1.35M.

  25. About rents, Geo, well I guess I must have had an exceptional deal. I lived right around there in a place comparable to 1200 Monterey (4/4, about 2800-3000 sq ft, but w/800 sq ft or so additional unfinished in the garage/basement), nicer kitchen, equivalent view, but original bathrooms for $3100/mo. 2002 thru 2008.
    BTW, what’s your guess on selling price for 45 Rosewood? 138 San Felipe just came up, too, and is cutting fast. Nicer street and has a view. Asking $997K now, down from last sale of $1.15M in 2007.

  26. I can’t see 45 Rosewood being worth more than $1.2mm – $1.3mm. It is a nice street, and a decent place, just not worth the ask imho.
    where it sells? $1.5ish probably if it finds the right fish. but what do I know?
    you did get a bargain on your rent — most likely because you started in ’02. when we looked for our place last summer — decent SF detached, of size with views are running much more these days. a quick perusal on CL will net you $4000 asks for smallish homes etc…

  27. in the neighborhood, 101 lansdale which has been sitting on the market just dropped their price to $2.69 which still seems a bit steep…

  28. 45 Rosewood is now down to $1.55M:
    That still seems like an awful lot of money for that place (unless it is much nicer on the inside than I imagine from the pictures). Purchased for $1.59M in 2006, the entire cost/value of the remodel has been absorbed by the deflating bubble, and at least another $100K in capital loss/selling cost has gone poof. No real surprise of course.
    I still think $1.35M +/- is the right price in 2009, but of course it only takes one purchaser to fall in love I guess.

  29. Death by a thousand pin pricks I guess…It has to be tough to face the loss and price it at $1.3 to move it…

  30. Geo,
    I agree about 45 Rosewood.
    Did u see 210 Maywood come up? I think these prices are all crazy and that intrinsic value for most of these places is under $1M, but that being said, if someone is intent on paying today’s prices to live out there, I’d think 210 Maywood is a much better bet:
    Assessed valuation on the place is less than $100K, so there is plenty of room for the sellers to come down from $1.295M. The views are outstanding from that side of Maywood, it’s a nicer street, and even though the house is obviously a bit dated, I have to think that picking that up for $1.1-1.2 and then putting $100K into a cosmetic remodel is a much better bet than paying $1.3+ for no view 45 Rosewood. Still, though, I bet the deals will be much better next year 😉

  31. 94114 – About 159 Castenada, that’s a really nice area. House looks a little dated and looks like no views, but nice to me and perfectly livable. I’m not sure what to make of that last picture, though. Is that really the back of the house? Seems like it’s a different place!
    Anyway, not having seen it I obviously could only guess, but I bet that one sells fast at that price ($489 psf for 2200ish sq. ft place). If you go see it, let us know what you think.

  32. I did see 210 Maywood come up, love the mid-century modern, but the beige argh..I agree it is a much better buy than 45 rosewood, and with a little kitchen update (gas stove/fridge — love the original cabinets) could be quite nice.
    negotiating to $1.1 and this is a decent deal for a long term & small family.

  33. 138 San Felipe is going to be a good Apple when it sells, too. That Forest Hill house, at 159 Castenada is a really good price.
    I looked at a couple of place up the hill in St. Francis Wood today, on San Pablo, on my way back from the beach. I was actually looking for the ones in Monterey Heights that you had mentioned, but got lost trying to find them and I could tell my wife was getting annoyed, so I just looked at them instead and went home.
    161 San Pablo is a beauty, with great ocean views, but unfortunately outside my price range.

  34. NVJ: 161 San Pablo does have wonderful views, we saw it when it first opened. It did seem a bit sterile, but a lot of space and that one closet..yowza.
    We also went to the San Leandro that was recently listed – quite tired in places and an odd wall at the top of the stairwell, but with some work to the basement and the bathrooms fixed, could be a very nice place. $1.4 for it is a bit steep given the work it needs though.

  35. Geo,
    Did you see this “apple” come up, 130 St. Elmo, now asking $1.25M:
    That’s a fantastic location – one of the nicest streets in Monterey Heights imho. I haven’t been in the house, but it looks ok except for that bathroom with all the schlocky marble.
    Last sold for $1.3M in 2005, and a large downpayment at risk (from prop shark). They tried to sell it last year, starting at $1.5M, and going down to $1.4M before pulling it:
    Now it’s “3 DOM”, lol.

  36. 130 St. Elmo — I did see that “Re-Listing”. It is a wonderful street as you note, if it was not a bit too small for us, I would take a harder look at it. It is not a bad asking price at $522/ft², so if you figure negotiating it down from here 10%+ it seems a reasonable price for a solid neighborhood.
    And yes, the bathroom desperately needs to be redone…

  37. 340 St. Francis — Any one know where this finally closed at? It went contingent but is not showing up anywhere. I need the comp. Thanks

  38. Interesting info about 340 St. Francis, anonn.
    Geo, to put that 340 St. Francis sale price in historical perspective for someone like you who is very familiar with the micro market out there, that $2.15M is exactly the same price that 125 St. Elmo – renovated 4/3, 3300 sq ft – sold for in October 2004. Obviously, there’s no comparison between St. Elmo and St. Francis Blvd, even though St. Elmo is a very nice street. Take a look at the Zestimate and accompanying graph:
    BTW, the Zestimate “flagged” the 2004 sale as an “anomalous” transaction, but it was real. The flippers who sold 125 St. Elmo rolled their profits into 135 Fernwood, but the music stopped for them I guess. Nice trade on 125 St. Elmo, but, like the old Kenny Rogers song,
    You got to know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em,
    Know when to walk away and know when to run.
    You never count your money when you’re sittin’ at the table.
    There’ll be time enough for countin’ when the dealin’s done.
    BTW, I was in your neighborhood yesterday – any info on 135 Fernwood? It looks like it has gone totally dark – it was advertised as a short sale recently and then dropped off.

  39. No clue on 135 Fernwood, but a tough spot for sure.
    @ $2.15, 340 St. Francis is about $580/ft² which seems consistent with the other sales recently. The real question is where does the nabe go from here?
    161 San Pablo which still sits for $2.3 at $613/ft² is now going up for rent apparently…

  40. Geo,
    As to where that specific neighborhood is going, my guess is another 20% down on average. I’d be thinking in terms of 99-00 prices (apples to apples) right there, but it’s just a guess. Monterey heights should do a little worse imo, maybe down 25% from here (approx 98-99 prices)?
    If you’re renting and waiting for, say, 210 Maywood to get to its rightful valuation (in current condition) of about $750K, perhaps you could rent the place almost directly across the street from it, 185 Maywood?
    They’ve been trying to rent that for a long time. I bet with the right approach you could talk them down from the $4500/mo wish rent (down from their previous wising rent of $5250 a month or so ago) to $3500/mo or so.
    Wait a year or so from now and I bet you’ll be able to lowball successfully a nice property. Or else, you could just renegotiate the rent lower and wait another year 🙂 This market has turned and it’s like a supertanker. It’s going to grind and groan and take a long while to unravel it all but the destination is assured imo.

  41. 85 maywood — we looked at that place a while back, and it is functional, but not pretty at all. the interior dark wood/rafter look doesn’t really fit.
    The downstairs has one of those “pine” paneled rooms, and a wasted amount of space on a “laundry room” that is unfinished. there is a small back yard the owner is putting a deck on back.
    No views from there, except for the house across the street which is nothing to look at…yeah one could save money there, but you wouldn’t really enjoy your time there.
    I love the look of 210, but it is just too small…and too expensive still (should be about $1.0…

  42. 195 santa ana hits the market for $1.398, seems a bit steep given the current market, but what do I know…

  43. We went to see 195 Santa Ana, though currently a bit over priced given the location and work that needs to be done, is a nice little house.
    Anyone know how much it costs to excavate and build out a portion of the garage/1st floor to get more space in there?

  44. 195 Santa Ana is pretty nifty — the flow around the little courtyard is cool. lots of light flowing through.
    bathrooms need some work (keep original tile and fix the old wallpaper) and the original wood panels need refinishing.
    Personally I would redo the kitchen to be more fitting with the original design, but that is personal preference.
    But the big question is how to make more space for the wine cellar/media room in the garage/crawl space under the first floor in front…
    and the termite inspection for this one is crucial.

  45. I haven’t seen the house, but corner lots like 195 Santa Ana on that stretch of Monterey are very desirable imo. Anything west of where Monterey turns into Santa Clara is very quiet and really nice (it’s basically a dead end street, and the bulk of traffic is either wholly local or due to Sloat elementary school at certain times, and even that does not spill over too much onto Monterey over there).
    Just one block to the east are $2.5M to $5M houses (e.g., 1601 Monterey, which sold for $5M not too long ago and looks to be getting renovated – again, lol).
    No idea on price (not having seen it), but when you see corner properties on Monterey right there asking $1.4M today, it really puts into perspective just how crazy people were for paying $1.6M for 45 Rosewood back in 06 (to bring it back on topic).

  46. Just found this discussion. Very interesting. What is the SFARMLS district code for these areas? Thanks.

  47. Geo – just rereading your earlier comments, I’m sort of surprised that you seem to think the location of 195 Santa Ana is not so nice. Admittedly, it’s not the absolute nicest part of St. Francis (imo, that would be just above Santa Clara near the fountain), but it’s pretty nice over there. I’d actually prefer Monterey there to St. Francis Blvd. (below Santa Clara) b/c there’s so much traffic on St. Francis going to Sloat. If 195 Santa Ana has views, I’d say that’s pretty desirable all in all – definitely in the top 25% of St. Francis locations imho.
    Not sure how long you’ve been watching the market out there/living there, but I know you like mid-century stuff. One of the coolest houses for fans of that style was 75 Santa Monica – did you ever get a chance to see it before it sold (I think about a year and a half ago)? Fantastic, and 100% original and in perfect shape (1 owner since new). Unfortunately after it sold, there were work trucks immediately and lots of sheetrock being unloaded. I’m sure the cool kitchen and baths are long gone…. It doesn’t look like too much from the street, but what a cool house.
    eddy – I think it’s Sub-Districts 4-M and 4-G.

  48. LM: Not sure over the confusion on the location of 195 santa ana…I think it is a fine location — a bit far from West portal and on the edge of St. Francis proper, but as you note pretty nice with a good corner lot.
    zippo views that I could see…
    My issue is not with the location per se, but the pricing for that location..at $668/ft² wouldn’t you buy the 161 san pablo property which has spectacular views, and is turnkey refinished…
    I did not get a chance to see 75 Santa Monica before it sold, unfortunately. I walk by it all the time to West Portal. Nice example indeed. They are also redoing 145 santa paula which is another super fine place (with a big dunmpster out front…) that sold last october.
    While I enjoy mid-century, my TRUE love are Deco houses — 465 Castenada, 849 Sanchez…195 Santa Ana is a tweener — a bit of deco and a bit of mid-century. a fine house that needs a fair amount of work.
    195 S.A. should be about $950k to $1.0 tops imho in the current market…

  49. 849 Sanchez was a very cool house. I live just a few blocks from there. It’s funny that it wasn’t featured on Socketsite. Finding a large deco house in SF is tough. 195 should be closer to 1 million but I think is more likely to sell for around 100 below asking. It is in St. Francis Wood which commands quite a premium.

  50. Geo – sorry if I misinterpreted. Too bad that 195 Santa Ana doesn’t have any views; that’s a big drawback imo. The houses one block closer to Santa Clara have some pretty nice views.
    About price – you’ll never get me to disagree that these places are all overpriced on a fundamentals basis, and not too many should be trading north of $1M. As to “market value”, though, if people are still dumb enough to pay almost $1.2M to live in attached houses in Miraloma (!), it’s hard to say that anything on a pretty big lot in St. Francis is going to go for $1M or under. At least not yet 😉
    I’m still watching 138 San Felipe to see how low that goes. At $997K and more than 100DOM, that looks like it is going to go for a 2002ish price or less. It really shows the premium placed on renovations (even cheap flipper renovation) in this market – I’m guessing that people are willing to pay up for the redo not only to save the hassle of doing it themselves, but also because the renovation is effectively wrapped into the mortgage (valuable I guess in a market where cash is not as plentiful as it was). 138 Sab Felipe really suffers from the dated kitchen, b/c the street and views are good.
    PS – it’s too bad that you didn’t get to see 75 Santa Monica. Besides all the orginal woodwork/built-in and floors being 100% in perfect shape (except for the linoleum floor in the kitchen that looked to be “original: and so not in perfect shape), it had the coolest indoor barbecue pit in the kitchen. All you needed was a black and white tv w/rabbit ears and reruns of “I Dream of Jeannie” and the effect would have been perfect.

  51. Geo,
    Cost is probably about 120K for what you are describing (sight unseen, and not including the systems for the entertainment room, wine storage and wine!). But figuring excavation, new foundations, interior finish, windows and exterior tie-in.

  52. 138 San Felipe is weird, and justifies my point on Santa Ana pricing because you can buy that one, put $100k in a kitchen and some updating and have a comparable house in terms of finish with great views on a great block for $1mm.. and have it exactly the way you want instead of generic granite/cherry nonsense…alas.
    94114 — 849 Sanchez is a beautiful work of art, simple as that. I would be surprised (but it wont be the first time)if 195 Santa Ana goes anywhere near asking. not with 65 Santa Ana sitting there for 75 days, at lower price point/ft² and others..

  53. They must be banking on the fact that Santa Ana is actually in St. Francis Wood and that it’s a custom built home.

  54. 210 Maywood — $536/ft² for that cool place vs. 195 Santa Ana…needs a gas stove though 😉

  55. 94114 — I would change the paint — the beige drags it down, maybe add some window to the garage door too, to break it up, and drop the privacy concrete, but overall it is a great mid-century example — jetsons/atomic great potential.

  56. I like the privacy concrete but it doesn’t work in front of this house. I love mid-century but I don’t like when the garage is the main thing you see from the street.

  57. Geo – I’ll say not a chance at that price for 191 Maywood – I don’t care how nice it is inside. We’ll see…
    At least you’re closer to probably my favorite house on that street. Never been inside of it, but take a walk by it (it’s just 2 or 3 houses up the hill from 210 Maywood); I bet it’s really col inside:

  58. That is a nice one, good color and very nicely landscaped. Bars on windows??
    191 is a good size, but seems like a plain big box on the outside — maybe it is the color, I would have thought seriously about repaint — will be interesting to see what it looks like on the inside. $522/ft² puts more pressure on 195 S.A. and 210 Maywood…

  59. Geo, 191 Maywood, at over 4000 square feet, you’re going to have a much lower per square foot price. I’m not sure if that’s going to effect those other houses. For your sake, I hope it does.

  60. 94114: True to some extent, but I believe the spread is too wide between them right now..shouldn’t be $100/ft²+ between them to account for the size difference. I would figure $550/ft² for 195 Santa Ana sounds about right.
    I do think it will put even more pressure on 161 San Pablo though…depends on the views from 191…

  61. Geo:
    Looked at 210 Maywood today. Forget the relatively low price per square foot. The price is still too high for this one. Great views. Love the fireplace but the bedrooms are downstairs and feel a little basement like. Not much of a yard and the facade is is crying out for change. There’s got to be some major play in that price.

  62. Mid-Century Modern: 550 Lansdale drops it price to $899k, getting closer to its ’05 mark of $800…
    St. F-Wood: 135 Terrace gets a little religion and marks down to $1.65mm but still to steep by my calc…

  63. Also mid-century interesting is 150 Casitas came up, asking $899k or $384/ft², so it must need some TLC and though that part of Casitas is a bit shabby…

  64. Geo: A baby price drop ($14,000) on 2932 26th Avenue. I’m not sure what the point is other than to signal they’re not budging on the price. Very nice house but not large enough for a big family.
    Did you ever see the inside of Broadmoor?

  65. I did see the inside of Broadmoor, when it was offered for rent. It has some great bones, needs a new kitchen and some bath work, nice yard/drive with a garage off the back alley. Certainly make a fine and interesting home.
    Just that tight location gives pause.

  66. And the high price, of course.
    Chuckle…oh yeah, and that too..I don’t think it is an egregious ask like 135 terrace, but it is agressive — $1mm even seems about right for the place given the work it needs, but that is just me.

  67. Man it is raining houses on the market here in the st. F-wood, with 3 new biggies hitting a couple at insane asks…bless their hearts, this will be an interesting year.

  68. Looks like 45 Rosewood is 2300 sq ft tax records and additional 800+ on the lower new level…this makes it over 3000 sq ft at 1.55 would be 500/sq ft +-…for remodeled house in Monterey Hts w/view and nice yard doesnt seem like a bad price.

  69. 500/sq ft +-…for remodeled house in Monterey Hts w/view and nice yard doesnt seem like a bad price.
    The problems are: 1) no view in a view neighborhood and 2) that 800 square feet is reclaimed basement/lower level and so is “worth” less imo.
    The closest recent comp to 45 Rosewood imo is 10 Fernwood, which was a similar 2000ish square foot house with 900-1000sf or so reclaimed in the basement. Remodelled too – perhaps not quite as nicely as 45 Rosewood, but perfectly ok – and it HAD A VIEW. It went for $1.32M or $440 psf.
    You might find someone who falls in love w/45 Rosewood of course, but I’d say FMV in this market is no more than $1.35M, and going lower every month. For $1.145M (I’m sure less), you could buy 210 Maywood and spend $200K and get a spectacular view house of roughly equivalent size (with reclaimed basement) just the way you want it.
    Best of luck with the listing, deb. Great neighborhood, but tough market and no view is a big deal I think.

  70. Saw both houses…no comparison to spaciousness and outside space. Downstairs Rosewood was integrated as part of the house…downstairs Fernwood was tight felt like an add on…imho not nearly as nice. Also Fernwood was an REO always different prices per sq ft. not the real market. House on Rosewood across street just closed in last month for $570/sqft. and had not much view. The view is nice from 45…Trees at sherwood forest, Bay, Morning Sunrise..not bad. Should come take a look…it really is a great house.

  71. District 4/Balboa Terrace apple alert.
    Here is an “apple” that I have been watching and which just closed: 331 San Fernando Way.
    Sold in 8/2005 for $1.29M, and again in 5/2009 fo $1.09M, down 15.5%. It was a perfect apple, well under $400psf for a fully renovated 4/4 (tax records are wrong – it was fully renovated in 2003 when the house was raised and the lower level redone).

  72. 331 San Fernando — nice catch there.
    we dig the house two doors down, the “mod” addition was very well done and incorporated, it is fresh yet keeps the feel of the original.
    and 380 urbano hits at $505/ft² today…for you ingleside fans.

  73. Geo –
    Problem with 331 San Fernando is that it is directly across from the elementary school (Sloat), but of course it’s been across the street from it for decades. (It’s also a reasonably ok school – that is, reasonably ok for the SF public system which is a total joke.) 235 San Leandro is a much quieter location.
    A block or so to the north makes a big difference on San Fernando. For a good laugh, take a look at the sales price history on 261 San Fernando on that next block:
    I’m almost certain that the $2.475M sale in 2007 was fishy, but that $1.71M October 2007 was a real deal foreclosure sale (only 7 months after the sale, so it looks like a first payment default to me – the sort of stuff that wasn’t supposed to have happened in Ess Eff). Considering that 261 San Fernando sold for $1.5M before the Lehman fiasco, I think it’s safe to say it’s now under its 2003 sales price of $1.4M shown on the redfin link.

  74. 15 Fernwood:
    Now that place is legitimately nicer than the one I rented out there, and a bit bigger. It’s elevated, too, which my Chinese friends tell me is absolutely necessary.
    (LOL, I remember the flap on SS a while back about native Chinese and Asians being “crazy for real estate”. I don’t have a real view, not knowing enough Chinese that well I guess, but it was funny because that very week two friends of ours originally from Beijing were up in Tiburon, and the wife actually said “Chinese are crazy for real estate” and also explained to me how Chinese like houses you “go up into, not down into”, and they had never heard of Socketsite ;))
    $440psf for 15 Fernwood puts it exactly where 10 Fernwood closed, but 15 Fernwood is a bit larger and looks significantly nicer from the pics. I think 15 Fernwood is impossible competition for 45 Rosewood – no comparison between the two imo. I bet they get close to that price for 15 Fernwood relatively quickly – it seems well priced at least from the pics.

  75. Like clockwork, Andrew Herrera has a new listing every Thursday in D4. This one is going to take longer. Nothing seems to be selling at that price point in D4.

  76. 94114: I hear ya, but $440/ft² is a nice starting point for the negotiation.
    LM: It does look nice, with the generic kitchen, I am sure will appeal to many..

  77. Geo: I’m not arguing with the price. I think its fair. It just seems like the buyers in this price range in this area don’t seem to be out there right now.

  78. 1200 Monterey – $5800/mo rent is still laughable out there. It’s a nice house, they should just cutthe price (from the wishing $1.45M it’s been at for a while) and get it sold. They only paid $740K in 1998, so it’s up 100% (not counting renovation costs I’m sure, but they don’t look to have been massive). I’m always so surprised that people try to go the “accidental loanlord” route rather than simply cut the price, get it sold and accept the loss of imaginary wealth. Prices will be significantly lower next year (and in 5 years) imo.
    45 Rosewood – Death by a thousand cuts indeed. This I guess is facing the loss of real $$, as the reductions are eating into the downpayment (already almost $200K in heaven). Maybe they’ll find someone to pay $1.5, but I doubt it.

  79. 210 Maywood – now down to $1.095M, down $200K from its initial dreaming price 81 days ago:
    Long term owners (like 210 Maywood) unloading is going to be the mechanism through which nabes in SF “reset” imo.
    1200 Monterey looks to have been withdrawn, but is still for rent at a laughable $5795/mo. The house couldn’t sell for $1.4M, so applying the rule of thumb that SF owners should subsidize deserving renters at least to the tune of an implied 300x monthly rent multiple, the fair rent for 1200 Monterey should be no more than $4600. Frankly, even that seems too high to me.

  80. I hope Geo didn’t jump the gun and sacrifice himself this early in the unwind, 94114 – I like his stuff.
    Perhaps he bought 15 Fernwood? After all, as to market price today it did receive the LMRiM Seal of Approval™ (see post above at May 21, 2009 5:28 PM) 🙂

  81. Or maybe 130 San Buenaventura?
    Sold 5/15/09 for $1.07M, or $404psf. That is incredibly cheap for that street, which is one of the very nicest in St. Francis. There must be something more to that sale than meets the eye – even for a total fixer that would be very cheap in this market. If it wasn’t a total disaster, even I would have paid $1M for that size house on that spot, and that’s saying a lot!

  82. I really don’t know. Like I said, I have to believe there is something going on with that sale that’s not apparent. $1M is probably about intrinsic value for a house in that spot, and we all know that we’re still far above intrinsic value still (but getting closer, slowly)!
    Tax records show an assessed value for 130 San Buenaventura of $1.6M, and prop shark shows som esort of sale in 2005, but no numbers or details. Perhaps someone with actual knowledge of the 5/15/09 sale will chime in.
    BTW, did u see 66 St. Francis come up?
    I don’t like the “lower” stretch of St. Francis Blvd as much as the upper for obvious reasons, but $1.625M shows that prices have indeed softened dramatically in the last few years. We know a couple very well who paid $2.1M to live on busy Santa Clara for a similar house in 2005/6! 66 St Francis is another example of a long term family cashing in (very wisely, imo). Property taxes are $1500 per year (that’s correct, folks!), so they’ve been there since the 60s. Again, this is how these nabes are going to reset imo, and people who bought in the 2000s are simply going to be trapped for at least a decade or more.

  83. Again, this is how these nabes are going to reset imo, and people who bought in the 2000s are simply going to be trapped for at least a decade or more
    One man’s trapped is another man’s lifestyle choice. These neighborhoods are precisely “settle down and raise a family.”

  84. One man’s trapped is another man’s lifestyle choice. These neighborhoods are precisely “settle down and raise a family.”
    Unintentionally ironic, I suspect. Tell that to the seller of 45 Rosewood, which is the subject of this very meandering thread about Monterey Heights and St. Francis. 3 years’ living and a mimimum of $200K + the cost of the remodel already in heaven, and the place isn’t sold after 90DOM.
    Ditto for the guy selling 138 San Felipe (also mentioned in the thread and within a block of 45 Rosewood). 1-1/2 years’ living there and already $225K in heaven, with 138DOM.
    Why don’t you contribute something useful, anonn, and use your realtor decoder ring to find out something about the seemingly very low sales price of 130 San Buenaventura? As I mentioned above, $1M is about my estimate of intrinsic value for a house around there of that size, but I don’t think the market is there (yet), and so any information about the sale would be interesting to me and 94114 as well, I’m sure.

  85. No, I’ll tell that to no one. It’s a fact and you know it, all cherrypicking aside.
    Maybe I’ll look into that stuff later if I’m bored.

  86. 94114: I am still here, but it has been very busy in the last couple days, so I have not had a chance to pop in here.
    And we did buy something…but I don’t want to say until we complete closing…it is in the nabe…
    Sorry LMRiM, but I did jump the gun, as I think inflation will kick up here, so I went long 30 year debt sub 5%…which is always a good move. get my first time home buyer credit and have a nifty place on a very quiet street. Willing to ride more short-term volatility. Probably not the bottom, I agree, but then again I am comfortable with my risk position over my time horizon.
    15 Fernwood is a good price point (a bit of a discount becuase it is not “true” St. Francis Wood, but unfortunately a bit to big mediterannean for us..
    That price on Buenaventura is incredible, not sure what happened there, we never saw it. It is an incredibly quiet hidden street.
    I did see 90 San Pablo dropped their price, as well as some others. And I agree 66 St. Francis is a bit too close to Portola for my taste.
    Take care guys,

  87. 94114; thanks, we will see as we bought ourselves a “project” which could get fun or frustrating. we will see.
    I know you like mid-century — did you take a look at 1 San Marcos?

  88. Best of luck from me as well, Geo! On a long term view, sub 5% interest rates are going to work out for you in the end I bet. Just don’t watch the comps too closely in the meantime 🙂 I do hope you jump in once in a while on D4 discussions and keep us up to date on what’s going on out there!

  89. LMRiM: Thanks. And don’t worry, I will have even more to say about the comps now..as long as they confirm my value.. 😉 On a serious note, it will get interesting over the course of the next year here.
    94114: I agree 1 San Marcos is overpriced at the current ask. Patience, your place will appear and it will be cheaper than it is today.

  90. And I meant to add some other interesting notes on D4:
    135 Fernwood back on — for $2.985;
    and 101 Lansdale is also showing contingent after 275 DOM.

  91. Geo – 135 Fernwood got its own (new) thread:
    I’m really fascinated to see what happens with that one – you should go to an open house and report back!
    It looks like 130 St Elmo sold – for a pretty high price imo (only about 5% under its 2005 price). Nice street and spot – perhaps they updated the house a bit and that’s why they didn’t eat a larger loss; they were trying to sell it for a long, long time….

  92. Chuckle, see, I miss a few days here and whole threads go by…I will definitely go to the open house for 135.
    130 St. Elmo went for $520/ft² thereabouts, so not a bad point in the current market.
    I see 1460 Monterey finally went contigent after 300+ DOM…and your San Felipe apple still sits unloved.
    I admit I was surpised 66 St. Francis went contingent so quickly.

  93. Geo, have you seen 388 Lansdale Ave? I haven’t seen anything quite like it before. I’m not sure if that’s a good thing or not.

  94. 94114: I did see 388 Lansdale hit, I am looking forward to the open house this weekend. I think there are some really nice points to the design from the pictures, and I like the front — even has bit of deco flair. skylight and stairwell look neat. the bathrooms look a bit goofy to me, but what do I know. Cant tell on the pricing without the ft², so hard to judge.
    990 Monterey hits the market at sub $400/ft². busy street, but that is a lot of house if you like that style.

  95. Re: 388 Lansdale – saw it last time it was for sale a couple of years ago. Was in decent shape and very large. Don’t think the seller has done anything/much since they bought it.
    Barbara Callan was the last listing agent, and listing still shows on her website (I don’t know how to shorten the link so I won’t copy it here, but if you go to her site and look at 2007-2008 sales, you will find it.)
    She says “over 5,000 sq. ft”.

  96. I saw it last weekend. One of a kind but very funky and the views, although panoramic, are of City College and surrounding neighborhoods. It is a super big house.

  97. The listing for 45 Rosewood Drive has been withdrawn without a sale. Lasting asking $1,495,000 while purchased for $1,589,000 in June of 2006 and then remodeled.

  98. No real surprise here. FMV is probably around $1.35Mish, and $200K+ capital loss + selling costs + remodeling costs is a big number to accept.
    I bet the FMV of this place goes lower than $1M before it regains the $1.6M (nominal) paid in 2006.

  99. TPTB = “The powers that be”
    I thought the term was second nature to everyone thinking about the US economy. Oh well, once again I discover just how out of place I am in SF….

  100. 270 San Anselmo – that’s a really nice spot on the corner of San Buenaventura and San Anselmo. (A little further in on San Buenaventura towards St. Francis Blvd. would be a little nicer imo, but San Buenaventura is one of the nicest if not THE nicest stretches of St. Francis imho.)
    It looks like an “apple” to 1990! I only see very minor permits since its last sale for $1.2M 19 years ago (bath remodel, fireplace and cabinets), and looking at the pictures it looks like not much else could have been done.
    If it sells here at current list, that would be a CAGR of 3.5% nominal, or 0.75% above cpi inflation. What about that 6+% CAGR we keep hearing about for SF? To give you an idea how off that intuition is, if this place had appreciated at 6% CAGR nominal from 1990, it would sell for $3.631M. I guess there still could be a wild overbid 🙂

  101. Oh, and BTW, not that I am a “stocks for the long run booster” (obviously I’m not), but it looks like the S&P 500 will have handily outperformed 270 San Anselmo. The S&P 500 is up about 150% (more like 200-250% including dividends, depending on what one did with the dividends), while this house will be “up” less than 100% (and significantly less if one subtracts out property taxes paid, selling expenses and maintenance/minor remodeling expense). Amazing!

  102. What about that 6+% CAGR we keep hearing about for SF?
    Two things. You are taking 1990, which was a peak year and comparing it to today. That is a no-no, which I am sure you are aware of. You need to compare peak to peak or trough to trough or something like that to determine long term growth rates.
    Point two is that District 4 has lagged San Francisco home prices over the last two decades.
    From this data:
    You can see that $1.1M house in 1990 would have been worth $3.1M in 2007. Which is almost exactly a 6% CAGR.

  103. Let’s check back in 5-10 years, NVJ. You’ll see that prices in SF will have lagged inflation significantly (from today), and 6% returns will turn out to have been a pipe dreams.

  104. Sure, lets check back again in 5-10 years and do a trough to trough calculation from 1997.
    6% is a long term rate, there is a lot of variability in the short term rate.

  105. Not sure I totally understand your comment, NVJ, regarding “trough to trough”. Do you think that the next trough will occur in 5-10 years from now?
    That would have some historical consistency with your view that 1990 was a “peak” year and 1997 was a “trough” – 7 years later. If we take the “peak” of the current cycle in SF as somewhere around 2006 to 2008, then by that logic we’d be looking at a trough sometime 2013-2015. If you think that, well we are probably on the same wavelength!
    Except for the prospective return that is. I bet 1997-2013/15 will show negative real returns, and roughly 0-2% CAGR nominal. Much depends on inflation outlook regarding the nominal outlook, of course, but a negative real return trough to trough is assured imo.

  106. Historically, real estate moves in long cycles, so yes I would expect the next trough to be 5-10 years after the peak, which was probably 2007.
    Usually after a bust, we have a long period of approximately zero percent nominal and slightly negative real returns. This cycle has been somewhat atypical, but I still think that this is likely to repeat itself.
    There is some chance that the whole thing is compressed this time around, since our bust happened faster than normal, but I kind of doubt it.
    Just going by the Case-Shiller (CS) data, you see that is about what has happened so far overall. I am expecting CS Bay Area (nominal) prices to stabilize within 10% of what they are today and you expect them to drop more, I understand.

  107. Usually after a bust, we have a long period of approximately zero percent nominal and slightly negative real returns.
    Just going by the Case-Shiller (CS) data, you see that is about what has happened so far overall.
    I hope I’m not quoting you out of context, but I don’t think these ideas follow one another.
    Going from the CS data, what we see in the Bay Area is an absolute slaughter of nominal values, down more than 42% – one of the very largest declines in the entire United States. Certainly nothing like “approximately zero percent nominal” after a peak.
    SF of course has not done quite as poorly, but it has done much worse than most accept (most just cherry pick neighborhoods/properties to reach the comforting conclusion that prices are only down 10% or so, maybe a little more by now some would admit).
    Overall, I think this cycle will be very different than others, because it is going to play out against the backdrop of a secular credit deflation, which is unlike any other cycle post WWII.
    I do think that the cycle might be slightly faster (who knows, really?), and I have to believe that the “Bay Area” as a whole is pretty far along the process of correction from follish highs. However, those holdout areas in SF and a few other locales have a lot of pain in front of them….

  108. Look at CS values from 1997, when they were 60, and today, where they are 130.
    60 * 1.06^12 = 121
    So we have actually done better than 6% from 1997 to today, and that is for the whole MSA, not just SF. We have some ways to go before we hit bottom, if it is 10% then the numbers line up amazingly well with the long term trend.
    I said “after the bust”, prices tend to have a long period of stabilization, sorry for not making it clear what I meant there. Usually every real estate cycle follows the same pattern:
    1) Long period of no growth – 5-10 years
    2) Short period of moderate growth – 3-5 years
    3) Very short period of extreme 20%+/yr growth – 1-2 years
    4) Short period of falling prices “the bust” negative 10-20%/yr – 1-2 years
    There have been four times this cycle has repeated itself in California since WWII. The only thing significantly different this time is that we had our phase 4 aborted in 2003 or so by the easy money policies of TPTB and instead got another 2-3 years of phase 3.
    Right now we are in the #4 “bust” phase. If I am right, we are almost done with it and should enter phase 1 again relatively soon, a year or two at most.

  109. Look at CS values from 1997, when they were 60, and today, where they are 130.
    60 * 1.06^12 = 121
    So we have actually done better than 6% from 1997 to today
    Nice strawman! C-S for the SF MSA was at 68.80 for 1/97. Today it is at 118.46. Over the period (n=148), average monthly return was 0.37%, or 4.50% annualized. CS for 1997 ended at 75 and change, so you can see that 1997 appreciation (about 10%) was actually greater than the annualized rate for the whole period 1/97-4/09.
    Now, 4.5% is nothing to sneeze at, and is very good appreciation. Over that period, you had:
    (1) A tech bubble that was centered in the SF Bay Area (at least it was one of the major loci);
    (2) an enormous bubble in the FIRE economy based on the explosion of finance and credit availability (which disproportionately benefitted a few coastal cities in which finance was a large component of the local economy); and
    (3) a worldwide housing bubble, likely the largest and most widespread and synchronized asset bubble in world history.
    Good luck thinking that SF is off to the races again in a year or two and that similar (or equally strong) underlying conditions occur! Actually, I hope people believe that. That way, they will keep paying interest on these inflated loans based on inflated assets, right into the pockets of their betters (the banksters), and that will ensure that they absorb the lion’s share of the depreciation (both real and nominal) still to come. Consequences should follow poor decisions and they need to be visible – clearly it wasn’t enough to just look at the history books and listen to the arguments or people wouldn’t have been suckered so easily!

  110. NVJ,
    I think at the very least, even you have to admit this is not just a typical real estate “cycle”. Expecting the same result seems pretty far fetched.

  111. Go back and get data from 1940 then LMRiM, you will find the same growth rate. It is a pretty long and enduring one. But “it’s different this time.” Tipster seems to believe the same thing.
    The recessions in the 70’s and 80’s were worse, by almost any standard. The unemployment rate was 10.8% in LA in 82, now it is 9.4% and in the 70’s we had high unemployment *and* high inflation. Perhaps you are not old enough to remember those periods, but the economy was actually considerably worse than today. The only thing slightly noteworthy about today is that this recession was lead by housing, instead of having housing follow the economy. California has always been very dependent on housing for employment though, so prone to the boom/bust cycle.
    It is a common conceit to think that one lives in uniquely historical times. Usually that is not true.

  112. Looks like 90 San Pablo was pulled off again??
    another 30 days — will we see another price drop on 210 Maywood??
    There was a lot of traffic in the nabe driven by 120 Santa Ana & 270 San Anselmo, the latter of which does deserve some premium given the excellent layout and lot, but yikes the ask is steep in my book.

  113. LM: 138 appears to have been pulled too, but I have not heard of it actually being sold.
    94114: We are getting ready for a complex project here — a partial move-in in august, while we get the permits for some work to be done, then out to an apartment while the work is in progress and then fully back when complete; but the house should be pretty nifty when all is said and done. I think we have lined up a great architect and landscape architect to help us. You would appreciate this mid-century beauty.
    Thanks for asking.

  114. Ditto, Geo.
    I think I know which house you bought – if I’m right it’s pretty amazing when you think about it that you only paid a little more than 8% more than the guy who bought 138 San Felipe 2 years ago! You did stay in St. Francis, right?

  115. LM: Yep, about 8% higher than 138 San Felipe. We are in St. Francis Wood proper on a nice lot, and a rather different house in the hood, at just under $600/ft². Would have liked to get it a bit cheaper $1.1mm, but I was willing to pay for the architect premium and unique layout (I am absolutely viewing that premium as consumption dollars spent for enjoyment of a fine cigar in a really cool courtyard).
    It is a little farther to get to West Portal, but I can use the exercise, and the views are more limited than our current place, but the offset is I have a real backyard, and we are excited about re-working that as well. Nothing except and ill-planned and executed kitchen renovation has been done to the house since originally built. so some great stuff to work with.
    With the expansion space we are going to add, it will get very interesting.

  116. Good luck with it, Geo – that’s a nice spot a block or two away from some of the priciest places in the whole nabe. Take a drive by 1245 Monterey – that’s what that sort of cash would have gotten you over 6 years ago. I think you’ve done much better today!

  117. 94114: Check out 206 amber for a mid-century, looks like you could pick it up easily below the ’06 price…

  118. Thanks Geo! I think Amber was on the market earlier this year. Although I like a lot of the homes in Diamond Heights, it’s not my first choice in neighborhoods. No offense to residents of Diamond Heights, but there’s something kind of grim about that neighborhood.

  119. No doubt that parts of DH have a grittier feel, and is tightly packed in that area.
    That part of Amber is mid-century heaven, not too shabby and a very short walk to christopher playground for the kids.
    209 amber went for 450/ft² ealrier this year, so there whould be some room on the ask…
    But I agree, depending on the size & price constraints, there might be some better bargains coming along in different areas.

  120. 85 Turqoise is sharp looking, and I agree a bit pricey, but keep in mind it is more turn-key than 206 amber for example — it has been nicely redone not too long ago.
    206 will need some updating…

  121. I’m not sure how much they spent on the renovation but the last sale was $650,000 on 03/14/2003. That would be quite a nice profit but I’m a little skeptical about how they could have bought a 2200 square foot home for that price in 2003.

  122. 61 Garcia — very sharp, and a nice starting asking price…the kitchen looks like it was not finished?
    thanks for the pointer.

  123. Chuckle — first thing I thought of when I saw 61 Garcia, was I would repaint it white…
    Did you see 1 san marcos is showing contingent?

  124. Geo: I saw that come up. It’s hard to tell with all of Grandma’s furniture, but it looks like it hasn’t been messed up, except for those funky windows. There was an ultra dwell modern house on Cameo a couple of years ago that went for something close to 2 million if I recall correctly. Times have changed.

  125. 200 Brentwood nice looking place – love the corner window. Personally, I like that style.
    Price seems a bit high — more like St. Francis Wood prices for Monterey Heights — that part of Yerba Buena is a bit busy, but you are on a nice corner lot with what looks like a nice backyard. The green paint is nice, I have driven by this house a lot.
    Ballpark it at $600/ft² gets me to $1.15 which is much more in line with current comps I would think.
    I will try and check out the open house.

  126. We have definitely hit market bottom — first the faux castle in Noe sold, and now 210 maywood is contingent… 😉

  127. 210 Maywood – I’ll guess it closes at $1.03M, with some credits we can’t see so a “true” price of $1M. Actually, not really so bad – maybe 20% above what I think a place like that is worth intrinsically.
    270 San Anselmo cut to $2.195M. Last sold 19 years ago for $1.2M. It’s a very nice spot in St. Francis. Looking at the kitchen photos, it might just be an “apple”!

  128. 270 San Anselmo is a very good corner lot and location. the house is in good shape too, though the fountain is cheesy. I toured the open, and the second floor office is a great space & view, and the second floor deck nice.
    I still think it is a premium to the market that is being asked — given it is a very solid property on a great lot/location. my benchmark 600/ft² for the neighborhood puts it at $1.8mm, so how much more is that lot worth?
    Great house though, if you like that style.

  129. 94114: We went to see 200 Brentwood yesterday. It is pretty nifty — a lot of original details still there in very nice shape. With some TLC here and there it would be a very nice house.
    It is on the corner, so has a wonderful view of the valley from the front and the back yard is well done. The place is small with only 2 beds up top and a jack/jill bathroom.
    But, the garage basement is huge, and goes back into the hill, so a little backhoe action and voila, you have a couple more bedrooms/bath. Definitely great bones there to work with if you are a bit adventurous and need gorwing space.
    Could be a very cool place.

  130. Geo: I agree this is a wonderful house and the backyard and patio are among the nicest I’ve seen. At this price, I do think it’s going to take a little longer to sell because it only has 2 bedrooms and 1 full bath. I guess the square foot potential is reflected in the price. I also think many would prefer to be on the other side of the hill facing the ocean.

  131. Here’s another one for the locals. The property at 175 Maywood (2461sq.ft.) received a Notice of Trustee Sale in June and has a date with the auction block mid-September. Bought in Sept. 2006 for $1.6 million it looks like they’ve gotten behind on the first mortgage ($1.28 million – thanks again, WaMu). Quite the hot potato, as it appears the previous owners had a NOD in July 2006 before it was sold the current defaulter.

  132. 120 Santa Ana is showing contingent now, so my guess is they found an offer closer to $600/ft² they liked.
    and 550 Landsdale took another price cut to $849k..

  133. Lots of interesting D4 activity going on:
    61 Garcia drops their price to $999,000
    160 San Anselmo drops theirs to 2.995 (still way over priced @$720/ft²
    190 San Benito lists for $1.599 – $537/ft² not sure how it can be 2,900 ft² and a two-bed; will have to walk over to that one..
    212 Santa Paul drops theirs a little to $2.085, $650/ft²..
    200 St. Francis pops up at $1.795 — $553/ft²..

  134. Geo, what’s your take on 200 StF? Seems super nice for a decent price? What’s the story? Not really familiar with this area.

  135. eddy: if you like that style, and the remodel, it is a good house. St. Francis itself, is one of the more busy thoroughfares in the neighborhood. the house is certainly impressive and has good space and traditional layout. I think the discount is for the busy location. seems about right to me.

  136. anybody saw 190 San Benito? what would you say abt the price ? house is spacious(2,900 ft²), but no backyard.Needs kitchen/family room work…
    but lovely house and location
    the only concern who may be the buyers ? even for the family of 3(1 being a teen) the plan is not the best.

  137. Geo: I looked at 1015 Duncan last weekend. I’m kind of surprised it sold so quickly. The floor plan was very atypical of an Eichler. It had a long side hallway (like a Victorian) and a lot of little rooms. The living room, however, was very light and spacious. I will be very curious to see what they do with it.

  138. More D4 action:
    90 San Pablo sold for a pretty penny of $1.77 – $699/ft² on reported numbers..
    and 125 Santa Paula is listed at $450/ft², $1.5mm which seems well priced at $450/ft²..

  139. Lurker: I don’t think 550 Lansdale sold. The listing has probably expired. It was open last weekend. Very cute house but it seems very remote up there.

  140. 161 San Pablo is a beauty, with great ocean views, but unfortunately outside my price range.
    Stick around… they may start to get flexible on pricing. A Notice of Default was filed on July 24, 2009 for this property. Bought for $1.825 million 2/2006, it was originally financed with a variable first ($1.4425 million) and fixed second ($199.5k). Don’t worry about the owners, though, as it appears they refinanced with WaMu in April, 2007. And for our courtroom drama, a floor installer/refinisher is claiming (PDF) he wasn’t completely paid, and oh, he was shoved out of the residence and down the stairs by the owner.

  141. 270 San Anselmo drops again to $2.09mm ~ $698/ft² so still a bit much in my book,
    125 Santa Paula & 82 Fernwood are contingent, confirming solid demand at the right price…
    EB: Thanks for sharing — looks like our own little suburban excitement.

  142. It’s official, at least according to PropertyShark. The Not So Rich Dad house, 161 San Pablo Ave., hits the courthouse steps on Nov. 16 with an unpaid balance of $1,711,210. Guess it wasn’t a Bubble-Proof Investment…

  143. 550 Lansdale and 191 Maywood still struggle.
    212 Santa Paula is still over priced and the ft² still overstated. great views though, and a great block in the neighborhood.
    We went to see 166 Palo Alto — what a nifty place — all very very original, so needs work to be brought up to spec, water damage in the ceiling so the roof needs seriously looking, but a very quiet spot with absolutetly unbelievable views.

  144. Geo: We looked at Palo Alto as well. Great day to take in the incredible views. Interesting, one of a kind house. I bet you it will be in escrow soon.

  145. 94114: on 166, you are probably right, someone will pony up for it. but the ask price is steep for the work needed on the house, what like $840/ft²..but what do I know? The layout is very cool and love the courtyard, but i am biased towards them 😉
    take care.

  146. An update on 175 Maywood that I mentioned above. It was taken back by Chase on Nov. 13 for $835,850. This 2,461 sq.ft. beauty was bought for $1,600,000 in August of 20006. Deals abound on the courthouse steps…

  147. Speaking of that price range and that area, I just noticed that 191 Maywood and 388 Lansdale are both in escrow.

  148. D4 Apple? 30 San Leandro — bought in ’06 for $1.6mm ($1.28 Senior & $160k mezz); listed in 10/09 for $1.795, reduced to $1.599 in Jan, now showing pending. Roughly $699/ft² at the revised ask. No permits listed on PShark, but the listing notes some work claimed. looks nice clean house on a decent block for sure. Interesting data point.

  149. 235 San Leandro is re-listed at a new price of $1.269 after sitting for some 300+ days at $1.3 and not selling.
    And that basement is NOT a wine cellar…

  150. 161 San Pablo is now showing as “pending” on redfin. Did this sell on the courthouse steps?
    Geo, looks like it was foreclosured for $1,748,904 on February 1. See my post on above on September 29, 2009 12:54 PM for the gory details of the financing (short summary: WaMu!) Oh, and now its for sale at $1.485 million.

  151. 112 Lunado a nice little one bought in ’05 for $1.4 drops its price to $1.498 from $1.65 after 13 DOM. Might not be an apple as it looks a bit freshly redone, but an interesting market comp for the area, still $699/ft² is a bit rich in my book for the location.

  152. Hey Geo. The square footage isn’t listed on 112 Lunado. Did you take a measuring tape? It does look like a very nice house.

  153. 94114 — if you look further down the redfin post, it shows 2,500 ft² finished — and this jives with the PS info. They have an 800ft² garage/basement too apparently.

  154. The big pink 160 San Anselmo comes back on market after failing to sell after a price chop for $2,995…now even more of a bargain at $2.495; about $620/ft² which is closer to market but still a bit rich imho, oh and only 2 DOM.

  155. Other D4 – 49 Paloma tries again at $1.475, a nice arts and crafts example but found no love above $1.5 in the prior listing.
    and 120 Santa Monica lists for a whopping $860/ft². great views from that spot but yikes.

  156. Here’s a fresh (March 12) SFW NOD. The property at 24 Yerba Buena Ave (2,438 sq.ft.) was bought for $1.6million in 2004 with a $1 million variable first (surprise, WaMu) and a $200k second. It has a couple year history of financial distress. I’d say something about going the distance, but this time I’ll just let our local Fed president handle the duties.
    Last year, for example, the share of mortgages that was 30 to 89 days past due declined. On the face of it, that looked like a hopeful sign. Unfortunately, when my staff examined the numbers more closely, it turned out that the drop actually represented a worsening of mortgage market conditions. What you want to see is delinquent borrowers becoming current. Instead, what happened was that delinquent mortgages moved in the other direction to an even poorer performance status. Many wound up in foreclosure. All in all, I expect that the share of loans that are seriously delinquent will continue to move higher.

  157. Love this latest campaign by anonn to try to make people think prices are way up from last year. He’s been hawking the theory in numerous threads, e.g. pushing the “March 2009” thing that one of the overpriced condo salesmen was claiming as trough. Guess it’s always a great time to buy a house when you’re a realtor.

  158. actually, anonn is spot on here. $669/ft² is above where I would have pegged this one to go. My benchmark for this area is $600/ft², which would have been $2.4mm for this one and it ACTUALLY traded higher. your dimissal of an actual trade is what is bizarre. time will tell whether they overpaid here or not, but it is what it is — a good comp, that is higher than where I would have put it 6 months ago. it might not be a trend yet, but one can’t dismiss it out of hand either.

  159. It’s pretty transparent that you don’t care about the real estate market at all, anon. Isn’t there like a movie review website you can do the same sort of thing on?

  160. I’m not sure how I dismissed an actual trade or comp. I only dismissed the suggestion that “it’s all micro, bro” only applies if prices are going down, which is what anonn is trying to sell us if you look at the concerted effort here. Anyway, he’s free to explain why this house would have been $2.4M a year ago and why he thinks that’s changed. I’m just making an observation here.

  161. You’re not capable of being flat with your language. A lot of posters on here are perfectly capable of disagreeing and contesting points without being all, “oh here we go again with the dirty realtor tricks blah blah blah.” It’s a fact that last March has been the bottom so far. Whether it was one V of a W or not remains to be seen. But you’re not coming from a place of knowledge, and you’re dismissive. So really, pal, you can take that “who, me?” nonsense and shove it.
    Also, if you actually read this website, you’d know that Geo is a guy who tracked this particular market very carefully and then went on to buy within it. That’s the nicer parts of areas 4 I’m talking about. So someone who put his money where his mouth is concurred with me. Like Eddy and sleepiguy in areas 7, I find these posters to be really on top of things. If you’d shut up and not try to be so snide for snide’s sake all the time you might actually learn a thing or fifty.

  162. The home at 140 Yerba Buena Avenue is scheduled to hit the auction block on April 14. I tend to think this isn’t going to happen, though, because of pending litigation. Note to self: Never give an undated deed of a property to a mortgage broker.

  163. 45 Rosewood. Oh My. a little discount to where it was pulled from, but I still figure only a $1.2 – $1.3mm house. ah well, we will see how motivated they are now.
    Bummer on 140 Yerba Buena — they should also sue the original lawyer for malpractice. What a soap opera.

  164. In D4 news — 235 San Leandro finally finds love after gaia knows how long on the market, contingent, with the ask knocked down to $1.229. with a couple others in the area also signing quickly when priced right feels like a soft floor for now at least.

Leave a Reply

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