It’s a trio of newly remodeled three-bedroom TIC flats (one with three baths) in North Beach. All with one car parking and a top floor unit with some big bay views off the back.
UPDATE: A plugged-in reader with excellent organizational skills adds to the story. From flyers for the three units when on the market back in March of 2007:
∙ The building was Ellis Acted on April 30th 2004 (i.e., five year window just about up)
∙ Asking $1,450,000 for 768 Green in 2007 (currently asking $1,395,000)
∙ Asking $1,450,000 for 770 Green in 2007 (currently asking $1,450,000)
∙ Asking $1,695,000 for 772 Green in 2007 (currently asking $1,755,000)
All three had already been remodeled at the time.
∙ 768-772 Green Street: $1,395,000 to $1,755,000 [772green.com]
∙ Listing: 772 Green Street (3/2) – $1,755,000 (TIC) [MLS]
Comments from Plugged-In Readers
Comments are closed.
Those are condo prices, not TIC prices. Someone go slap both the seller and the agent.
But it’s Sotheby’s; when they are involved nothing will be priced below $1 million because they are the “best”. The words “exquisite” and “good taste” will surely appear in their marketing materials.
Redfin shows 1.695M.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/772-Green-St-94133/home/12354819
A lot of staging effort. Great views and location. For this price, I’d prefer jumping to the other side of Colombus though.
No square footage on the listing also. Is this asking 1200+/foot? That’s very far from the best location.
Fantastic staging. I think the places look wonderful.
Website is good. Looks professional with excellent photography, but I wish it had floor plans on the website, and I wish the website split the 3 separate units so that you could tell which unit is which… but can’t get everything perfect.
The places look great, but I feel it would have been better/smarter to expand the posterior stairscape to make private patios for each unit.
It’s kind of annoying to share that tiny yard amongst 3 units IMO.
It is a great looking place. The staging is very well done, and looks quite expensive. Lots of room and board stuff, including my favourite Leather Sofa in the upper.
“staging very well done”!?
Orange county called, they want their McMansion interior back.
FWIW, I just pulled the flyer for this place from my files. It was on the market either last year, or the year before, and the listing agent was McGuire. The price listed for 768 Green on the flyer is $1.45m. I believe that was least expensive unit on the bottom floor.
I’ll .pdf the flyer and send it to you, Socketsite.
Oh sweet – I have flyers for all three units.
And financing detail from the time that provides the date as March 2007.
Pretty, and if the market were better we’d consider this one, except I wouldn’t want the blood on my hands:
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=109
Plus the block is one of only a couple in the neighborhood with fugly overhead utilities.
I live a block from here, and have been watching this project for a long time, though I thought it had gone onto the market a long time ago?? Anyone?
I admit I’m biased against, since their roofing crew was doing illegal tows (and moving their no DPW parking signs to dupe DPT into calling in the tows). My GF was one of the victims…much time wasted to get her money back from the city, but we learned a lot:
http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/bdsupvrs_page.asp?id=5158
A 1.7million TIC just doesn’t compute for me. There are a number of much less risky properties in that price range. They may not be as nice or in such a great location, but I don’t have to worry about co-owning an entire building with several others whose finances I have no access to.
Sorry, I just saw the notes above re: previous McGuire listing.
seems to me the market is just not there at these prices…the TIC units at 905 Union Street did well and would be comps.
700 Green is a better than average block certainly, but not fantastic.
This will be interesting to watch but staging alone will not get it done.
When’s the open house? Or does Sotheby’s only do private showings by appointment?
If Rossi used the Ellis act on Green St…the TIC could never become condos?
[Editor’s Note: Incorrect. Eviction was prior to May 1, 2005.]
UPDATE: A plugged-in reader with excellent organizational skills adds to the story. From flyers for the three units back in March of 2007:
∙ The building was Ellis Acted on April 30th 2004 (i.e., five year window just about up)
∙ Asking $1,450,000 for 768 Green in 2007 (currently asking $1,395,000)
∙ Asking $1,450,000 for 770 Green in 2007 (currently asking $1,450,000)
∙ Asking $1,695,000 for 772 Green in 2007 (currently asking $1,755,000)
Flatscreen TV mounted above the fireplace – classic faux pas.
All three units were just withdrawn from MLS
…and the plot thickens!
I don’t see a flatscreen above the fireplace.
It’s gone from Redfin too.
About square footage, PropertyShark shows 4314sf for the whole property. With 4.6M asking total units, this brings us close to 1000/sf.
Also, PS shows a sale at 4.37M on 6/27/07.
There’s a flat screen TV mounted above the fireplace in the second level unit. Check out the interactive website, not the MLS listing.
amused, that’s the first pic from Second Level.
I looked at this place when it was on the market last time. The finsh out is Home Depot quality at best. Then there is the 3 car tandem parking. The price here is nuts! This place will sit for another 18 months
Also, PS shows a sale at 4.37M on 6/27/07.
You can’t hide from the Shark… Let’s see, including Relitter commission:
$4.37 x 1.05 = $4.6 million
Currently selling for:
$1.395 + 1.450 + 1.755 = $4.6 million
See, nobody loses…
Poor seller. Looks like he spent about $75K on each unit (probably did a lot of the work himself) and at least another $50K per unit in carrying costs. He’s just trying to get his original purchase price out of the deal, and represents yet ANOTHER seller walking away from the remodeling costs.
I’m guessing he got very little interest, and withdrew the listing so he could work out a short sale agreement with the bank so he can try to lower the price. If true, this poor guy is now in a world of hurt. I hope he withdrew because he got 42 offers, but I doubt that’s true. I wish him luck – I hate to see a businessperson suffering, even of that business person is a HD quality flipper.
I know the seller and the situation, and will only tell you that virtually every guess in the comments is wrong. I’d share the truth, but fiction appears to be all most of you care about.
“poor seller” is also quite the oxymoron.
[Editor’s Note: Please correct us if we’re wrong (quite literally) but we count all of one reader guessing (which is even noted as such) while the rest of the comments are either opinions, questions or facts. And for the record, we’re all about facts (and setting the record straight).]
“poor seller….must have spent…I hate to see a businessperson suffering…”
-Not the first time such speculation has been called “mawkish” on this board. A good choice of words.
“I know the seller and the situation, and will only tell you that virtually every guess in the comments is wrong.”
Fact: sold for 4.37M in 2007 (source public records)
Fact: currently offered for 4.6M (source MLS)
Fact: profit potential at the offer price before holding, selling and remodeling costs 230K (source math)
Unknowns: holding, selling and remodeling costs, final sales price.
sfrob,
I’ll “guess” there’s more than meets the eye. Numbers probably don’t tell all the story there, right?
That’s the problem with real estate numbers. Everything is suspect. There are a number of instances I know of where the sales price was artificially inflated (backed up by an artificially inflated appraisal, of course) in order to get the bank to lend the entire amount “at risk”. The agents of course were all in on the scam.
As an illustration (the numbers are not important), it goes like this: the “true” sales price is $80K, but the buyer and seller reach a side deal to “split the loot” at $90K. The appraisal comes in at $125K. The banks “lends” $100K (80% of the phony $125K appraisal). At the closing, the “sales price” is $125K. The buyer puts up $25K in cash, the bank funds the loan, the seller gives the buyer back $35K under the table, and the buyer walks away with net $10K in cash + the house. The seller walks away with $90K for his trouble. Everyone wins! Ha! (Of course, when the loan defaults, the taxpayer eats it – systemic risk, you see, so we can’t be bothered to track down the fraud.)
This sort of stuff went on all the time, and agents are well aware of the practice. There were lots of variations on this theme. I’m sure similar games are now being played with FHA appraisals, “nonprofit” downpayment assistance scams, etc.
I don’t know anything about the sale of these TICs, and the above illustration is just an example of how the numbers don’t always tell the story.
lol LMRiM. You pick this thread for that example????
I’ll only share that the speculation that this is a speculator is wrong. Virtually every comment has assumed that, hence my initial comment. But you’ve got to love tipster and LMRiM who take the errant path to outworldly extremes with utterly ridiculous posts about scams, fraud, short sales, etc.
I guess it’s just too boring to point out that if you plan to sell now when you bought fairly recently your going to lose some money. So let’s make extreme guesses that are more appropriate for a Las Vegas or Miami real estate blog.
Assuming the worst in everyone and every situation can’t be a fun way to go through life.
“I guess it’s just too boring to point out that if you plan to sell now when you bought fairly recently your going to lose some money.”
Ah, so they are going to lose some money on this transaction.
But somehow that doesn’t matter since they weren’t “speculating” when they purchased this a year and a half ago, renovated it and put it back on the market.
Clear as mud my dear friend.
Since you claim to know the real story on these Green Street TICs, sfrob, we’re all ears!
What’s that I hear? Crickets…
Assuming the worst in everyone and every situation can’t be a fun way to go through life.
Yes, but often a profitable way…. Sort of OT, but sometimes Wall Street firms and banks give personality tests as part of their screening processes. I know for a fact that at least for some of these firms, the qualified candidates who exhibit pessimism and deep suspicion (even sometimes unwillingness to be a “team player” on the stupid “personality profile” canned tests) are steered towards the lucrative trading positions – they don’t advertise this b/c they want to weed out the average people pleasers.
About suspicious real estate numbers in pretty nice areas of SF, take a quick review of the sales history of this one (note the 9 months between the January 07 “sale” and the October 2007 foreclosure):
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/261-San-Fernando-Way-94127/home/700867
I’ve seen plenty of others….
LMAO.
LRMIM, are you serious? Wall Street burned the f*cking house down with credit default swaps and this is evidence that they are “deeply suspicious” and “pessimistic”. That’s such utter nonsense. They wouldn’t have been leveraged up to their eyeballs if they had thought in worst cases.
Nah, AIG wasn’t “people pleasing” at all with their derivatives book that would have caused the whole world to freeze. Wall Street is not as prudent as you think they are. Their whole industry relies on deluding people that they can “edge” out others.
Please, they are human beings like everyone else and overreach. We are seeing the HUGE results of that leveraging nighmare now.
jessep,
Agreed wholeheartedly. WS was definitely on the happy pill for way too long. That’s a big part part of the problem.
But let’s not forget where the rubber met the road in all of this: houses changing hands at a rapid pace with huge profit at every step.
When you make a sale beyond your wildest dreams, followed by another higher, then another, your standards for reality move up a notch. Sure renting is cheaper, but people are still buying, then why question anything?
Just like WS blinded by bonuses, the RE industry forgot to do its own due diligence.