Tax records suggested an August 2000 purchase price of roughly $7,000,000 for 2306 Broadway while a plugged-in reader puts it at $6,600,500. Listed as expected for $6,495,000 twenty days ago, but recently reduced to $5,995,000.
Once again, updated since its last sale and the sellers are simply moving next door.
And in terms of photoshopping the views, let’s just say it’s already been a rough day on our tongues. Okay, and that we could have sworn that bridge and Palace were oriented a bit more to the west. Like they are below.
∙ Listing: 2306 Broadway (4/4.5) – $5,995,000 [Nina Hatvany] [MLS]
∙ Coming Soon And An Überprime Data Point To Be: 2306 Broadway [SocketSite]
∙ The Side Story (Quite Literally) For 2306 Broadway: 2310 Next Door [SocketSite]
∙ Why Stick With Just One Style When You Can Incorporate Them All [SocketSite]
9% below its 8/2000 price. I’ll call that a “1999 price”, especially as there was some remodelling iirc. 10 years and a loss. In primo SF. Amazing!
We can all do the math/read the Socketsite post that said the same thing you just said, sans glee. So again, why the gleeful repitition? You failed to answer that question.
I want it! I wish that I made more money, :-(. I would not want to pay the RE taxes on this house, but this is a beautiful house from the look of the pictures. I also like the lay-out. This is definitely a telling data point. I just do not see why many people would buy right now, instead of renting. Who knows how low the RE market could go?
Nice home, great location and what about them views…..HOT, HOT, HOT
I don’t really think this is a bad buy – if you’ve got the money and are in it for the long haul. I’d buy it and tear it down. It was built in 89, so it’s not a historical resource. You can put up a new building cheaper than trying to make this cramped place livable. I’d put something really modern here with floor to ceiling windows that really capture the jaw dropping view. Somehow, I don’t think the neighbors would mind!
Oh, and yes.. the photoshopping is just awful.
Is there really no reg against blantant misrepresentation by brokers who photoshop pictures? This is crazy… to me it is as bad as purposefully misstating square footage, HOA fees, or anything else.
I don’t think the photoshopping here is really that malicious… It’s just amateur, especially the photo depicting the attic, er “family room.” The only time I think it crossed the line was the property on Baker where they made the incredibly steep grade of the street look flat.
Regardless of the actual position of the bridge, the views don’t disappoint.
Looks like they just took the view photo and photoshopped it into the LR images. Clueless and tacky. But probably not blatant misrepresentation. Unless the view photo was taken from a completely different property!
I do think it would be a good idea for the board of realtors or what ever professional body sets standards in real estate to mandate a stiff penalty for photoshopping anything into or out of a window other than the “actual” view at a different exposure. Otherwise this kind of thing could easily get out of hand.
sleepiguy- what would you estimate the value of the lot to be on its own?
anonn wrote:
> We can all do the math/read the Socketsite
> post that said the same thing you just said,
> sans glee. So again, why the gleeful
> repetition? You failed to answer that question.
I can’t speak for LMRiM, but ever since I sold my home on the Peninsula and started renting in the city back in 2003 I have had hundreds (I am not exaggerating) of people tell me what an idiot I am for renting (often adding that real estate NEVER goes down). Real estate agents have been the worst (one guy kept calling so much that I had to threaten to get a restraining order before he stopped calling me). From 2003 to 2007 very few people could understand why a smart successful GSB grad was RENTING (when EVERYONE knew that renting was for idiots and OWNING your own home was a guaranteed path to riches). I have made it a point not to talk about real estate socially so most people don’t know that I have been a licensed real estate broker for more than 25 years, that my family has been buying Bay Area rental real estate for over 50 years, or that I rented my last home before I sold it so I could do a 1031 exchange and buy a 20 unit apartment building in Sacramento. It may not be nice but there is a little glee when I find out that many of the people that called me an idiot are stuck with homes worth less than they paid (and many of the agents who badgered me to buy have left the business to take other sales jobs). Since I would never let on that I feel any glee in the fact that the people who called me an idiot were wrong in real life I like that I can do it here (and on Patrick.net where I have been posting for over 3 years and had a lot of people tell me I was an idiot for renting in the early days)…
We can all do the math/read the Socketsite post that said the same thing you just said, sans glee. So again, why the gleeful repartition? You failed to answer that question.
I wasn’t asked, but I’ll gladly answer for myself. Because I share & welcome LMRiM’s glee.
Because I am cash-rich, having responsibly lived below my means for 10 years when effectively all around me lived beyond their means and were frequently rewarded for it.
Because during the long bubble years when my wife & I rented, everyone and their dog told us that we were throwing our hard-earned capital away, and it was often difficult to hold firm to our convictions in the face of it from all sides.
Because I grew tired of hearing from all quarters – especially from self-serving “professionals” – during the mid-naughts such analytic nuggets as, “Real estate only goes up!” and “There’s never been a better time to buy real estate!”
Because my wife & I still rent and will likely be able to purchase something at a steep discount to recent historical market price as the declines persist.
Because each month traveled backward in the Great Real Estate Pricing Time Machine means greater marginal value for each of my precious dollars.
Because each data point suggesting that “Nine Years of Pricing Gains” have disappeared vindicates long, long days & nights of renting and hearing about it from all those invested – both financially & psychologically – in the bubble.
Because analytic vindication has its own reward.
Glad you asked?
I think this is a beautiful home.
Great curb appeal.
The railing on the stairway is fantastic.
I don’t see anything that is garish or awful. Seems to be in great move-in condition to me… (never having been there and not knowing the layout)
I’d buy it and tear it down. It was built in 89, so it’s not a historical resource. You can put up a new building cheaper than trying to make this cramped place livable
the layout looks sensible on the website, and I’d hardly call 4000 sq ft cramped even if 1200 of that is the 2 lower levels.. plus that great deck.
I don’t see how someone could think this is a tear-down redo!
This place is a good illustration of a couple of trends going on (note I said an illustration of trends, not the trends in and of themselves).
First, the number of willing and able higher end buyers is just a fraction of what it was two years ago. Some $2 million and $5 million (and up) homes will still sell. But with the tighter lending and high down payment requirements, supply has far outstripped demand and that is not changing soon. This is why I think the higher-end will ultimately fall more (in % terms) than the mid- and low-end. There will be no bailout at these price levels.
Second, regardless of the foreclosure developments (and NODs have started to rise dramatically again with the moratoria over), resales by early- or pre-bubble purchases alone will continue to drive prices down. This place is at 10% (or more) below the 2000 price. But the seller can afford it and will cut the price until it sells. The vast majority of SF properties are owned by pre-bubble buyers, and they don’t mind selling at pre-bubble prices, so they will. Those who bought in the 2003-07 bubble are just stuck because they cannot refinance and cannot bring a big check to a closing, for the most part, and it will be short sales and foreclosures that get those places really moving. I think short sales and foreclosures will accelerate (see note on NODs) but even if they don’t, the marginal sale sets the market, and old-timers who want to sell will simply cut the price and sell, and bubble buyers cannot hold this back.
Last point — photoshopping is about the least egregious practice that should be more strongly policed by the real estate industry!
The value of the lot today? If you’d asked me last year, I could’ve given you a concrete number – 5 million. So for right now, let’s say 5 mil minus 15-30%.. The lot is probably valued at 3.5 – 4.5 million.
Ex Sfer: The two twin houses are not that attractive in real life. They are both vaguely faux Chateau/Victorian (Chatorian?) stucco jobs that reek of the late 80s. Bay windows everywhere! Also, the 4000 square feet is spread out over four floors. I’d much prefer something with an open floor plan and a larger media room on the top floor. Also, I hate having the dining table right at the front door. That seems really awkward to me. There aren’t many homes in Pac Heights with views where changing the facade is even a possibility. This is one of them.
So again, why the gleeful repitition? You failed to answer that question.
I have to confess a little glee, but just a little.
Honestly, I like to see smart decisions rewarded and poor ones punished; I think it’s better for society. I really don’t feel the envy that so many people want to ascribe to me for property “owners” (at least I don’t think I do, lol), nor do I share the “phony” empathy that so many people seem to want to advertise for those who are losing $$. It’s a dog eat dog world out there, but by virtue of living in the US and in SF at this time practically every one of us is more privileged than probably 95% of the people in the world (at least) and 99% of the people who ever walked the planet. So, some book entry digits at the Fed get jumbled around and reallocated. It’s good for the soul in the end ;
I’ll admit that lately I have gotten a little angry at the persistent refrain from agents (particularly noticeable on TFS) that prices are only down 5-10% from peak in “most of SF”. This is a lie, and should be countered at every opportunity. The obvious truth is that the overwhelming majority of property owners in SF have experienced declines in property value of significantly greater than 10% from peak, and in some neighborhood/property classes, the losses have been stunning (greater than 30-40%).
I do have to confess as well that I think housing has become too large a part of people’s personal financial well-being and prospects (due to the ramping of leverage and consequent rise in nominal and real prices) to be handled by salespeople who generally have a very poor grounding in anything but how to sell, and are basically motivated to make the sale at any cost. It’s bad enough that stock-brokers can “silver tongue” people out of discretionary amounts of $$, but agents are (by default) advising on truly life-changing leveraged purchases for most (not that a little “life-change” isn’t good for the soul, either ;)).
Thanks, ex-SF’er. It is pretty nice for that era – I’m certainly not seeing anything objectionable about it, except the ceilings might be a little low?
I don’t like the wallpaper but otherwise, well, it looks like the comfortable but slightly dowdy house of someone’s older, well-to-do, suburban relative, but with a really nice view. I wouldn’t sniff and call it a tear down.
And I think 4,000 sq ft should be enough for anybody. Seriously. I don’t care if you have a dozen kids and a home based business, I just don’t see how anyone really needs more space than that.
ok i’m missing something here. sure people are losing money on sales these days. guess what, you renters are STILL throwing money away too.
ok i’m missing something here. sure people are losing money on sales these days. guess what, you renters are STILL throwing money away too.
I’m looking at the +$1 million property market.
10% price decline at that price level (very doable from current ridiculous asking on most of the stale listings I’m watching) = almost 3 years of my rent.
Taxes & maintenance is cash thrown away, too. As are the opportunity costs of surrendering a downpayment and the costs of financing a mortgage. As well as further asset price declines post-purchase.
By my estimation, continuing to rent is a no-brainer: it’s not even close.
Your mileage may vary….
I dunno, shouldn’t your investments be based on what you can afford to risk and what your growth goals are, rather than what people are trying to sell you or what worked for that person over there in their totally different situation?
Not everyone wants to use their home as an investment, and it’s debatable if spending money to live indoors with no expectation of any other gain from it is actually “throwing money away.”
I’m not at all surprised at this price improvement :-). I still think this place has a lot of issues and competes with top end condos more than sfh’s due to the lack of outdoor space and the proximity of the neighbor.
The teardown concept really throws me here. No chance of the scenario playing out given the twin next door and the former owner to the west. Plus there are better lots. Go get the thing on green if you want a lot.
Buyers at this range are not afraid to make an offer. The fact that the price drop here is fairly decent tells me they are concerned. This should have been the starting ask price but now the sellers and the agent look weak IMO.
I predict a confidential sale and I’d venture around 1200psf or so.
I should add that after 20 years of “charming period detail” on a busy street, dowdy and suburban isn’t really a slam to me.
This house looks plain, but as such it is simple and relaxing and I think it does have a bit of charm. It’s good for the person who wants something in move-in condition, perhaps for a family or the person who needs somewhere to live while building their bold and modern dream house. 😉
So this price drop makes a statement of the tiny sliver of the market that is in the $5-8M range. But can we infer much about the other 98% of the market from this ?
This also makes me wonder if there really is a pressure at the top end of the market whether that causes any downward “move down” pressure on the $2-4M market.
And yeah, that photoshopping is deceptive. I would not have noticed it if the editor had not pointed it out, perhaps even internalizing that the GG Bridge was visible from both of the LR perspectives shown. (yeah, right : as if I could afford this place even at the reduced price :-). There’s no way that the views on the MLS photos 3 and 5 can both be correct.
This place is for people who like to go to Vegas. That’s all I’ll say on the design.
For the first time, though, I’m on Satchel’s side vs. Fluj (I don’t like their revisionist screen names and won’t use them). The first post was observational and not over the top. The defensiveness was as swift as it was unwarranted.
Regarding the schadenfreude thing, though…
I bought a place in (fake) SF in 2005 for just over $1 million. It’s now worth less than I paid for it. I’d prefer that to not be the case, but for the past few years I’ve managed to earn somewhere north of $1 million per year – not even counting the wife’s salary. We live pretty conservatively, and could go without jobs for many years without hitting a wall.
But I know a LOT of people (friends, family, associates) who are having a really hard time right now. Good, smart, hardworking people. I find the concept of having “glee” at their misfortune to be in extremely poor taste. Sure, RE market cheerleaders who haven’t recanted or found religion should STFU.
But celebrating the misfortune of the people who are REALLY getting hurt by all of this just plain sucks. It’s the guys Satchel went to school with who made this all happen, and there should be a reckoning.
Well, thanks, amused.
About the “reckoning”, as long as people keep looking to government to “save” them (and the turn to Obama was particularly depressing for people like me who adhere to this view), the elites will take adantage of them. It’s as simple as that.
My friends at Blackrock and my former hedge fund are ecstatic these days. The amount of money that is being siphoned off to “manage” the toxic assets that they created, knowing full well that they would ultimately be flubbed off on the taxpayer (this was known at least since 1998 when Greenspan saved their bacon with the LTCM fiasco), will be breathtaking. Sure, some individuals will get hurt, but the system survives to plunder again.
I don’t see anything that will stop this dynamic, barring an all out collapse, which may come. But not before the population – through their elected leaders – sacrifices as much as can be extracted.
Sorry to hear about your loss in value on your place. You can afford it, so no big deal. I’ve lost $100K+ in a month’s trading more times than I can count (on my fingers and toes anyway). It sounds from your posts that you really enjoy your place, though, so that’s a mitigating factor.
About misfortune of others, it’s a necessary thing. For everyone who is suffering a loss, another is obtaining a propective gain. This bubble valuation was imaginary and very dangerous for the structure of the economy; I think there is ultimately a larger societal good in the phantom valuation disappearing. About the banksters, though, that bridge was crossed with TARP 1 in 9/07. The population has lost that war.
Sorry, I meant TARP 1 in 9/08 (not 07).
But I know a LOT of people (friends, family, associates) who are having a really hard time right now. Good, smart, hardworking people.
I know my share, too.
Life doesn’t come with a contract clause against “hard times.” Too many of the people we know, however, acted as if it did, and now demand someone do something to their advantage to make it so.
Bunch of whiners – my father’s generation grew up in the Depression and then went off to WWII. People only losing money on houses are a bunch of babies who don’t have a clue about “hard times.”
If they are, indeed, “good, smart [and] hardworking,” then your friends will be fine. Although to the extent they are facing “hard times” because of levered purchases amid an asset bubble, I suspect you overestimate their “smarts.”
Lastly, Satchel’s school chums didn’t sign the loans in other’s names – individuals signed them in their own names. And then “gleefully” celebrated their imminent new wealth.
You sign your name, you take your chances….
amused, I thought it the same thing twice, and I wanted to know why it all seems so amusing. Not sure what was defensive there. (Though I know I can be defensive.) To his credit, LMRiM answered it straight.
Debtpocalypse –
You seem to like using quotation marks.
The “hard times” I was referencing include “brain cancer”, “death at 31 due to freak accident” and “broken neck four days after the birth of your second child”.
Get off your high horse, old man, or I’ll tell you where to stick your ol’ pappy’s dust bowl stories.
5.5 is the sale price I predict…Great house and views!!! Remember people, LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION! #1 Rule in Real Estate. This home has it.
Bears are gleeful. Bulls are not. It’s as simple as that i guess. If you’re a buyer you should be gleeful. If you’re a seller then you’re sad. If you are neither then ignore the data.
Personally Im delighted. I own a house but Im in the marker for another. Why wouldnt someone like me be gleeful?
“The “hard times” I was referencing include “brain cancer”, “death at 31 due to freak accident” and “broken neck four days after the birth of your second child”.”
No, you were not. Read your “own” post again.
Find a different site to talk about your stories of brain cancer, death at 31 and broken necks.
Oh, forgot to say, do keep bringing your stories of SF Real Estate and related successes and failures here.
Whoa, Chuckie, while I agree that those things would have meant hard times in any economy anyway, that’s a little harsh.
I think that when threads veer off into bidets vs washlets, it’s not so very off topic to talk about how personal situations can affect people economically.