The sale of 4338 Cesar Chavez closed escrow on 3/19/09 with a reported contract price of $1,725,000 (21% under the original asking price of $2,195,000).
A plugged-in “noearch” gets the bragging rights (“I do think this house is overpriced however. I see it more in the 1.6-1.8m range.”). And as always, don’t bother to criticize those who predicted a sales price unless you predicted one as well.
UPDATE: A fact we should have added, that’s $585 per square foot in Noe at a Realtor reported 2,950 square feet ($688 per square foot at a PropertyShark reported 2,509).
∙ A Bit Of Classic Noe Elegance (Just The Facade Ma’am) And Views [SocketSite]
Does anybody know how many sq ft this house is, or whether it was a short/foreclosure sale?
Don’t know about whether it was a short sale/foreclosure, but it’s 2950 sq ft, so it sold for $585 psf. Details, including pdf floor plans, are here:
http://www.4338cesarchavez.com/
I count the legit square feet on this house as about 1900 feet (from the floor plan). So, at this sale price it is really over $900/foot.
As noted above, the MLS listing states 2,950 square feet and a selling price of $584.75 psf – so this $ psf will contribute to our “official” MLS stats.
No mention of the extreme funkiness happening here? Look at a rear shot of the house, and the accompanying interior photos. It resembles a ship’s poop deck, resulting in funky room after funky room, stacked. Nice facade, agreed. But the aft? “Classic” it is not, far from it. Its selling for 1.725M is pretty awesome for Noe in this economic climate.
This is a huge selling price for this house in this climate. to me it says the re mkt for shfs in san fran is just not as weak as broad stat measures says it should be.
sparky is right the legit sf is not 2950 and the whole price is much better index than the psf.
remember this is a nice but not incredible, on a good block, not the best, located not in the center of a very good neighborhood.
Yes, a Noe Valley home selling for about 30% fewer $/sf than the 2007 peak is a sign of strength, not weakness. Oh yeah, also, up is down, black is white, and crummy is awesome. I do admire fluj’s consistency though.
I think in the next few months, as comps continue to come in, it will be well established that Noe Valley commands only $500-600 psf.
A huge step down from 2007.
Feel free to print that floor plan yourself and count it up. This place is not $500-$600/ft. A huge lie about sq.ft., that it is.
The bulls are still cheering the rally but there is a bear story on the tea leaves. Anyone trying to claim this as 900 psf is crazy. $585 kids. And this is the nicest house on the block. It’s not Prime Noe but pretty close and certainly a comp for the area. There are still a few reckless buyers willing to throw around higher prices (knife catchers as some people call them) but those ranks are thinning. I don’t track NV as closely as I do PH but I have enough anecdotes to see that prices are coming down.
As for PH, the days of 1000psf seem to have passed for anything but the most special homes. 2500 Divis just hit the market at over 1000psf for a cool $10M. No view but this is a prime PH home (another Showcase home). This place has a chance, but I think it will be a hard sell even at this price. Could have sold for $12M last year. 2775 Green is over 1000psf — no view, no chance. 2310 Buchanan — same story. These place just wont sell until there is a major ask price correction. 2165 Jackson @ 500psf, total gut job isn’t moving. I bet you the agent is getting a ton of developer interest at 350psf, same as the other place on Pacific St that was pulled.
My hypothesis has always been that it would take 7-10 years for all the econ to play out on home prices and I started to think that it was going to happen much faster; but I’m sticking to my original hypothesis — Real Estate prices give back gains very slowly. The big drop seems like the creme /froth blown off the bubble. But I feel strong that we’re going to see more and more % points shaved off these homes — back to around 1997 adjusted prices. IMO
sparky-b, how did you count it up? The plans do not include a scale and, moreover, they state they are not drawn to scale. I’m fully aware of the fraudulent claims rampant in real estate sales, but I had understood listed square footage not to be exaggerated often because that would be such an easily proven lawsuit. I’m just wondering if there is yet another type of B.S. one should be on the lookout for.
Trip,
I made the assumption that the width is 25feet, scaled to that and plotted it. It may be out of scale somewhat in the other direction, but not much as the look of the kitchens, baths, etc. seem right. I didn’t take the peaked roofs out of this either, and some of that footage doesn’t count. They obviously counted all the garage and mechanical space, but they should not have.
I don’t think enough people get sued over footage. It is used so often as a value number for property and is so often BS. This is a big pet peave of mine. If it is an important number, then it should be accurate. Also, there should not be houses sold [without] square feet listed either.
Property Shark says 2509 square feet plus 485 for the basement; assuming the basement refers to the garage/storage we’re looking at $688/sqft not $900/sqft. No building permits were found on the shark.
sparky-b, thanks for the math. I guess one does need to verify listed square footage (even better — include the listed number in the contract and declare it a material term!). Also, I see fluj’s listing (not his place) on Los Palmos closed — congrats! Selling a $1M+ place is not easy these days.
Sparky, Lot 12, 4338 Cesar Chavez, is 31′ x 114′. The Property Shark number (2509 sqft) comes from the city so it’s probably close to the real number.
City Plat Map PDF (Block 6561)
the above post of mine should end, “without square feet listed”.
Where does property shark get their sq. ft. data?
If it is an important number, then it should be accurate.
Bingo. couldn’t agree more.
Also, there should not be houses sold with square feet listed either.
Disagree completely.
one of the valuable metrics for RE is price per square foot, to help with comparison purposes, etc.
I recently saw a FABULOUS home that was 6,000 sq ft and 4 bedrooms. That’s a different monster than my neighbors, who have 4Br in 1600 sq ft.
given “illegal” spaces the $/sq ft is still not perfect… but it is a metric that can be tracked over time.
the above post of mine should end, “without square feet listed”.
that makes more sense! I was wondering where you were coming from!
Did anyone see 400 Fair Oaks? Also in NV, this just closed at $1,405 (slightly above list price) after 16 dom. If p.shark psf data is correct (2444), this comes to about $575 psf.
400 Fair Oaks is on 25th Street, between Dolores and Guerrero, 94110, arguably in the Mission District.
Good lord, folks, just look at the floor plan. Looks like each of the two floors are 25 by about 55+, giving you something shy of 2500 square feet when you subtract out the front porch and stairs. The lower looks to be about 25×20 without any stairs. So a decent estimate is 2900-3000 square feet. Sure, subtract out the portion of the rooms with low ceiling heights at the edges of one or two of the older rooms – about 25′ x 4′, and take it down another hundred square feet, so maybe it’s 2800-2900. Just from an eyeball estimate, I get WAY more than 1900.
And I had brought up potential layout issues in the prior thread on this place, but the layout is fine. There are no issues at all – it has a very good flow. They did a great job. So give them $600psft on the upper floors and 500psft on the down.
Sparky, I have no idea where you could possibly come up with 1900 square feet. Are trying to goose the comps for an upcoming sale of yours? I’d say $585psft looks pretty close to me, and it’s a good home. They reduced aggressively and got a pretty good price I’d say.
I’m no expert in reading plans, but it’s pretty obvious the “garage/mechanical/storage” space identified in the lower level plans is at least 500-600 sq ft total, meaning the back part of the lower level (family room + bathroom + bedroom) is 400-500 sq ft.
I’d be very surprised if the listing website would list 2950 sq feet if that wasn’t roughly tied to what the living area is. You could of course argue valuation differences between main floor and attic/basement space, but no way is this a 1900 sq ft place.
If I had to guess based on the absence of permits, I bet the attic was “legalized” a long time ago (the place sold for $700K in July 1994!), and the 2500 sq ft on prop shark that keys off the tax records refers to the main level and attic level. Add ~450 sq ft of living space at the back of the lower level in the latest remodel and you get the 2950 sq ft listed (more or less).
tipster,
I measured it, and your calibrated eyeball must be off today. Top floor is 41 feet deep, the front isn’t full with, the master and walk in sit 5 feet off the PL. On the main floor, only 26 feet is full width, also has 5ft. ext. stairs, and a 14ft wide living area. The ground floor is full width for zero feet. Eith there are exterior or interior stairs. The total feet down is 390.
1900 ft.
Also tipster, F-U. I am not trying to goose anything. I have no agenda other that accuracy, and as noted I spent more time on the footage than you did. Yet, I gotta hear about my possible future sale. C’mon.
@tipster, the lot is bigger than normal for Noe; 31′ wide and a 114′ deep (3500+ sqft).
Here’s one reason why this house is more likely closer to 2,900 sq ft instead of 1,900 sq ft.
My best guess is that the buyer required financing. Financing requires an appraisal. No way would any appraiser come in at $900 / sq ft for this neighborhood in this day and age. But very easy to appraise at
yeh guys, know how you love to distrust everyone/thing, but sparky-b is CORRECT.
First and foremost, I could tell it wasn’t 3000sf by just looking at the picture. Do you guys have ANY clue how small SF houses typically are??? I’ve never worked on a house (outside PH and the obvious) that anywhere close to 3000sf. Typical little Sunset houses that all look alike = 1100sf.
Secondly, I’ll share a little architect’s secret for scaling a NTS floor plan: front doorway is typically 3′ wide. Another option: kitchen countertops are always 25″ deep. You can then either roughly deduce from there or you can actually go to a copier and reduce/enlarge accordingly.
In general, people want to add every square inch that they can find so that the house “appears” like it’s SO MUCH HOUSE and that means it’s SO WORTH $1.6 million. Wouldn’t have spent $500k.
According to SF Assessor parcel maps, the lot is 26.5 feet wide. This also is the width one finds using the measurement tool on Google Earth, (which tends to be quite accurate). Using the same tool, I find the top floor to be 49 feet long to the end of the rear bay (perhaps only 47 feet when one subtracts any roof overhang), and the bottom floor 60 feet long.
@Lee, I linked the map from the assessors office up thread. This house, 4338 Cesar Chavez), is on block 6561, lot 12 and is 31′ wide facing Army street (Cesar Chavez). Lot 12A is 26.5′ wide and is 4342 Cesar Chavez.
Yes, a Noe Valley home selling for about 30% fewer $/sf than the 2007 peak is a sign of strength, not weakness. Oh yeah, also, up is down, black is white, and crummy is awesome. I do admire fluj’s consistency though
So did you look at the photos with all the funky angles, or not? How about the kitchen at least?
Please.
LRiM,
Those are incorrect guesses. 390 down (actually less the stairs). The permits are no secret, they did a rear third floor addition and did the lower space at that time. This was done in 1998. The house was on Army street then.
They counted the garage, and garage storage and mechanical and the stairs, and the decks, and the exterior walls and probably the exterior stairs, all the low head height, etc.
@unearthly… whoops, I should be able to tell north from south better on a parcel map. At least I know I found the right house on Google Earth because the footprint on the floor plan matched up.
@ sparky-b – County and Bank appraised square footage on SFR’s are measured from the outside of the house. OTOH, condos are measured on the inside since outside walls are considered common.
@Sparky, I saw the house and it’s certainly much larger than 1900 sqft, the lot is a bit wider than the 25′ and if I have to guess it felt like 2500 sqft, maybe the number from the listing are accounting for the garage.
The main reason for the discount/sqft is the the fact it’s a decade old renovation.
You can bring this house to be a modern one with mostly interior work but it will cost you another $100-$150/sqft.
I think Noe is stabilizing at around $700-$800/sqft for the larger homes
$/sf is not really an accurate metric to measure expected sales prices of other properties, but as one metric of many involved in the salesprice.
A 1,000 sf 2/1 home would not go for 500-600k as estimate by one post as the land alone on most Noe blocs would be at a minimum $800k.
$/sf is a lazy metric to rely on, just like P/E when buying stocks, you need to look at all the components to make an educated buying decision.
Here are the sales of single-family homes in Noe (5C) by period per MLS:
2009: 15 sales, $653 mean psf, $1,195K median price
2008: 114 sales, $815 psf, $1,380.5K median
2007: 115 sales, $826 psf, $1,402K median
2006: 141 sales, $749 psf, $1,275K median
2005: 172 sales, $763 psf, $1,229K median
2004: 177 sales, $695 psf, $1,050 median
2003: 174 sales, $549 psf, $872K median
You can question the value of any metric – these aren’t homogenous properties – but the trend is clearly downward and I don’t see any evidence of “stabilization”.
FSBO – thanks, great data as always!
From FSBO’s data, it looks like 2003/04 prices, by and large. That sounds about right, and is consistent with overall city median trends as well as the upper-tier Case Shiller index, which is back at mid-2004 levels.
NV has been “hot” for a while, so the premium has been built into the valuation, and there would not be any reason to expect it to perform better in this downturn then average SF. (Conversely, I wouldn’t expect it to perform much worse either – at least so far – because there have not been significnat numbers of foreclosures or distress sales, etc.)
Thirty three sales in Noe post 10/15/08, 724 psf, 1.210 median.
I should add to my post above, the reason I “lowball” the prices a tiny bit is because of the very significant volume decline since 2003-05. In the context of dramatic percentage falls in sales volume, declines in medians or even perhaps mean $psf tend to understate the “true” decline of prices (say, apples to apples) because of selection bias issues (primarily, the “prettier” houses within any chosen segment are the ones which are selling – a beauty pageant effect).
looks like anonn’s “2008 1/2” stat of 724 psf fits right in line with the dropping trend.
815 — 724 — 653
I love Socketsite naked hypocrisy TM. FSBO uses a dataset of 15, and it’s all “great data.” But if I tried the same thing, and heaven forbid it shows something you people dislike? It’s “Nice try, anonn. Datasets under 30 are worthless.” But go ahead and believe in the precise dropping trend you’ve illustrated, Milkshake.
I think the volume declines are more significant even than the declining medians/mean trend.
15 sales ytd is not a huge data set of course, but it’s what we have. Apples to apples examinations confirm the declining trend in NV. No huge mystery here. Prices are down. It’s probably not possible (and not too helpful) to formulate an exact percentage down figure.
From the point of the experience of a typical purchaser, I strongly suspect that the overwhelming majority of “retail” house buyers in NV who bought after 2003 would not be able to sell without a loss. (Excluding of course the various “professional” buyers – flippers, multi-unit buyers, rehabbers w/sewat equity, etc.) I’d guess thar’s true for SF as a whole, as well.
Why do you like to talk about San Francisco real estate LMRiM? What is the endgame for your continuing attempts at encapsulating the market precisely? You don’t live here. You have no interest in purchasing here. Why the interest?
“FSBO uses a dataset of 15, and it’s all “great data.” But if I tried the same thing, and heaven forbid it shows something you people dislike? It’s “Nice try, anonn.”
That *IS* a good question, anonn. Perhaps you should be asking yourself why it is that FSBO has the credibility to make statements like that unchallenged and you, quite frankly, don’t.
Perhaps it’s because he doesn’t go off on wild rants, calling people twerps, or trying to undermine the credibility of someone FAR, FAR more credible than himself, like you are doing in the preceding post.
Stick with the facts, dude. Everything else, just let it slide slide slide off your back. Everyone loves FSBO. He states all his assumptions and then just posts the facts. We all understand it’s only 15, but there it is for all of us to see it.
Sparky gave me a big FU. Water off my back, my point was made. I still love the guy. He gives good perspectives. Water off my back when he says stuff like that. His FU didn’t seem to hurt my point at all, and several people even picked up on it in another thread.
Just let stuff slide. Someday some doctor is going to tell you you have 6 months to live and that will put all this into perspective.
Make your points, expose the warts, and although some might call you out, no one will ever disbelieve you. FSBO has infinite credibility because he does that and never lets anything get to him. At least publicly.
Try it. We’ll love you just as much.
Whatever, Tipster. You with your conspiracy theories do not merit a mediator’s role. I’m not attempting to undermine FSBO or anything of the sort. I merely pointed out an inconsistency. And clearly, since a dataset can be obtained post 10/15/08, so why not grab it and use it? As for me calling LMRiM a twerp, he is beyond rude, and beyond arch, daily. Today he dropped a snark on me from out of the clear blue sky. So I let him have it. As for Sparkym he calc’d that from the floor plans. The guy is a design + build contractor an engineer. You are an internet crackpot who is waging a disinformation campaign against all things SF r.e. I mean, anybody can plainly see that the uppermost room doesn’t have proper head height from the photos. Let alone the floorplans.
I see flujanonn took the advice to let things roll off his back, lol.
sigh… this thread reminds me of listening to day traders back in 1998 talking about moving averages, option spreads and floats.
They all had all sorts of data to back up whatever stock they were buying, selling or shorting.
Over the long term they were all wrong about creating wealth… but at least they put their money where their mouths were.
“As for Sparkym he calc’d that from the floor plans. The guy is a design + build contractor an engineer.”
The “design + build contractor an engineer” didn’t notice that the floor plans say “not to scale”?
Yup, exactly DanD. Did you read what was said? He said he calc’d it using the drawings + approximate lot size. It seems as if he might have been somewhat off on the lot size. But not by 1100 feet. And again, anybody can clearly see that at least one of the upstairs rooms is not legal head height at its walls.
I noticed and created a scale as mentioned above. They are not grossly out of scale, as the shape of the rooms, depth to width, plus window and doors sizes seem correct.
I would go so far as to say the singular reason that the drawings say “not to scale” is so that nobody uses them to measure the space.
But again it’s all about axes to grind on this site, so I again wonder to myself why I ever comment…
i don’t think the 15 sales in 09 has much relevance. that dataset is WAY too small, esp. when compared to 115-175 for the other years. if anything, anonn’s 10/15/08-present is more relevant. he was undoubtedly trying to show noe sales POST leman-sh!t-hits-the-fan-stock-market-crash-everyone-panics. and this is a valid turning point in economic history. the 33 sales, while still small, is statistically more significant than 15.
disclaimer: i am not a trained statistician. any stat guys/gals out there that can comment on relevance of datasets; i.e. if one is using set A of 115-175, how much more statistically significant would 33 vs.15 be for comparing with set A? (me curious 🙂
and btw, the reality is that people bias data, or their perception of data all the time.
hipster – I’ll run a t-test for you tomorrow on our groups of observations (ie 2009 v 2008 v 2007). There’s a lot of variation in prices psf in every period (year) but I think we’ll find that the 15 2009 observations with their much lower mean price psf will be “statistically significant” (ie we can state with x% confidence that they are “different” from 2008 or 2007). Appraisers get by with n = 3.
But we’re not really sampling here – we’re looking at 100% of Noe sales over the past few years. The 2009 mean is down. If there had been more sales, it would likely be down more.
45yo hipster, why do you trust realtor-supplied information when it comes to aggregates and macro-level info if you believe that realtors are mainly good for the micro stuff? In particular, the 33 data points that anonn supplied apply only to the sales median, not the $/sqft that was at the center of the debate. The number of data points that went into his $/sqft number is 21. Similarly, for the FSBO numbers for 2009, the number of data points is 11, not 15 for $/sqft. It’s because there are quite a few sales without reported footage.
And of course, there are a number of ways to compute $/sqft that give different results. For instance:
(1) Take the total footage sold divided by the dollar amount paid.
(2) Compute the $/sqft for each transaction and calculate the arithmetic mean.
(3) Same as (2) but calculate the median
These are the results for the since Oct 15 and the 2009 sales:
Since Oct 15: (1) 674 (2) 724 (3) 746
2009 sales: (1) 628 (2) 653 (3) 619
So depending on what measure you use, you can come to very different conclusions about the how much Noe Valley is down. I would take any casual number about $/sqft based on X sales with a grain of salt unless I understood exactly how it was computed.
(1) should read “Take the total dollar amount paid divided by the total footage sold.”
FSBO- if you can do that, I’d be interested in seeing the results, so thanks in advance.
Anonanon- interesting that you consider the 3 ways of calculating the price per sq. Foot. But I have only considered your #1 way. We all know that price per sq ft can be deceptive. Primarily because: 1- sq footages listed can be wrong 2- the city records calculate them differently than surveyed properties. 3- very importantly, smaller props are generally more expensive as PSF than larger ones. A 1000 sq ft house will generally be higher than a 3000 sq ft one.
That being said, all the numbers you ran show a higher PSF in the October 15 dataset vs the 2009. Does this have something to do with the 2009 dataset being too small? Or maybe a few larger homes sold in that timeframe, trending the numbers down? I dunno, someone needs to review the 11 or 15 sales to get a better sense.
With small datasets mix is going to come in. A number of larger homes have sold in Noe in ’09, yes. The 400 Fair Oaks property was a 2500 foot corner fixer that went for 1.4M. A 3400 foot Clipper property sold for 2.09M. There’s the Cesar Chavez property from this thread, with square footage that sparked debate on here. Also one of the higher ticket item sales this year, 4356 25th, didn’t list its square footage. I think it’s around 2700 feet and a 2.3M sale. Definitely over 800 a foot. Then again, 625 Duncan didn’t list its square feet either and that one went for 5.818 in November. (Although you might want to toss that one out all together because it’s not really indicative of Noe at all.)
But what matters is if the mix changed. Did it?
It looks like it to me. I could sit here and pick apart each 2009 higher priced sale with reported square footage. The lone flawless property so far this year didn’t report it.
If by flawless property you are talking about 25th street, I would talk to the people ripping out the front stairs and pouring new concrete and see if they think it is flawless.
Oh wow. How about that then? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Still, so far it has been the the only higher priced 2009 Noe property that has sold that got 800 a foot, and that’s because it was not in a challenging location, an oddity, or a fixer. Think those things don’t effect mix? I do.
OK, so the mix has changed because, well, just because I say it has.
You see, this is why I stick to apples.
OK 45yo hipster, if you’re still interested, here are the t-test results for the Noe SFH sales. In this test, we’re looking just at price per square foot (for those sales that include square footage). We’re testing the hypothesis that there is a statistically significant difference between the two sample means (ie 2009 v 2008) at the .05 level (and assuming they are drawn from normally distributed populations . . .)
In the table below, if there are two values, the first one is from the 2008 sales, the second is from 2009:
Total sales: 114, 16 (1 new sale today)
Sales with square footage: 78, 12
Mean ($ psf): 814.6, 650.1
Std Deviation: 191.4, 138.1
tStat: 3.625
P (one tail): .000968
tCrit: 1.73
Bottom line: at the 95% confidence level, we can be pretty damn sure that the 2009 mean psf is different (ie lower) than the 2008.
FSBO, excellent stuff. Anyone in the market to buy (or sell), when you are interviewing realtors ask them to run this type of analysis for you in the neighborhood you’re interested in (it’s not that difficult if you know your way around Excel). If you get a blank stare or a non-sequitur for a response (e.g. “here are three recent comps”), move on to the next candidate.
We’ll see how 2009 develops. Early indications are it is hitting Noe Valley hard.
Neat stuff- thanks fsbo!
“OK, so the mix has changed because, well, just because I say it has.”
Funny. I’m positive you were one of the very people who challenged me when I had less than 15 in any dataset.
No, not “I say it has.” Location. Fixer. Issues. At the top of the spectrum.
“Bottom line: at the 95% confidence level, we can be pretty damn sure that the 2009 mean psf is different (ie lower) than the 2008.”
Oh really? “Bottom line” ? All of that is rendered useless if the 25th street property reports its square footage and the Cesar Chavez property reports its square footage accurately.
Speaking about price trends in NV, an “apple” that has been mentioned a number of times in NV threads just cut its price again. At $1.425M, 414 27th Street is now 8% below its last sale in 2007:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/414-27th-St-94131/home/1302641/sfarmls-352786
But, at $864 a foot, if it sells at this price it’s still going to screw the ’09 mean.
No question, sparky-b, that a sale of 414 27th here would be higher than the mean so far.
I’m torn with listings like 414 27th. On the one hand I want to root for the prospective purchaser to get as low a price as possible. The bubble was so enormous, all these prices are going to go down a long way, and I’d like to think that someone who has patiently waited should get the benefit of that patience. The lower the price today, the less that will be lost by that purchaser in future years as the values continue to erode.
On the other hand, I feel for the current sellers. Sure, I think they were suckers for paying $940 psf in 2007, but like so many, they were caught up in a macro bubble that they almost certainly didn’t understand. I’m sure the “comps” justified the price they paid. Fast forward just two years, and even a sale here means that they will have sacrificed $200K+ to the credit deflation gods, or almost $10K per month, simply thrown away. That’s the capital loss (and selling costs) alone – what tipster likes to refer to as “throwing money away on non-rent”. Who knows what the effective after tax prtgage/property tax/maintenance expense was, but I bet it was at least another $7K per month. All in all, $17.5K+/mo to live in that place? Wow. No one (not even me) wishes people ill, but of course if the pain has to be meted out (and it does) it’s best that it falls first on the people who took part in the madness.
I know it’s a tough one. I don’t want anyone to take a beating on the sale, yet I was priced out of spec. project in ’07 and ’08, so I have some desire to see lower and stable pricing. $800/ft for newly done Noe would work for me, even $700 if the price on the fixer would cooperate. But, at the 600/ft to 650, I don’t think any developers will get involved.
Example: buy say 1500ft at $800K and make it into 2500ft for 600K cost. Cost is $1.4M + $110K carry + $100K sales vs. a 650×2500=$1.625M. Those numbers don’t work. So, will the fixer drop into the 600k’s or will the sale $/ft. stay up over $700/ft. That is what I am wondering.
4317 24th street sold for a flat 800K. Not low enough.
“But, at $864 a foot, if it sells at this price it’s still going to screw the ’09 mean.”
It would bump it up from 650 to 667, or about 2.5 percent. Hypothetically, if there were three sales at this level and nothing else happened, the mean would almost be back to ’04 levels.
Unlike averages, means are robust against anomalous outliers.
No diemos, you are thinking of the median. The mean is what is commonly called the average– the sum of the home values divided by the number of homes.
The median, as the middle value of the set, is generally less affected by outliers.
You’re right, brain cramp.
“The median, as the middle value of the set, is generally less affected by outliers.”
Not so much with datasets of 15 though. Factor in this Cesar Chavez one at its actual ~2000 feet. Then take the 25th street property, rumor has it @ 800+ a foot. Also add yesterday’s total fixer 4317 24th st sale at ~696 a foot. Never mind about what if the 27th street property goes for 800+ a foot. At that point what does the median look like?