Purchased for $710,000 in May of 2003, a complete overhaul, remodel and bullish market resulted in the sale of 3016 Pine Street for $2,725,000 in July of 2006.
Back on the market today and currently asking $2,595,000.
UPDATE: A plugged-in reader ads:
If you want to go a little further back, a contractor (who RIP) paid $600k in 2002 and flipped it to a couple of brothers in 2003 who IIRC went on the Planning Commission to defend their project as it was going to be “their home”. Soon after the project was done *surprise* it went on the market. :rolleyes:
There may have been issues with the remodel/expansion as scaffolding went up at least twice after the 2006 closing (but then, maybe they just wanted different paint colors).
BTW, I think (at least one of) those decks went in after the project was “finaled” (i’m just saying).
We can’t confirm the comment with respect to the deck(s), but if you’re interested in the property we might suggest double checking just to be safe. Cheers.
∙ Listing: 3016 Pine Street (5/3.5) – $2,595,000 [MLS]
Nice classic looking SF place on outside but kinda dull on the inside.
I don’t know what they are called, but those recessed multiple cieling lights are so dated already. Just like those bowl sinks.
I wonder what the “before” looked like.
anyone got the square footage, didn’t see it on the listing.
4517 sq ft. $575 per.
The before was 2 units, an upstairs and downstairs. The outside is pretty much the same just cleaned up and painted. I used to live right next door.
Its a nice clean renovation, but not great in terms of applicances, stone tile, etc.
So $2.5 MIL on Pine Street, whatever the story is — absent something really unusual – doesn’t make sense to me in this market.
It also does not look like 4500 sf legit, but could be.
ROFLMAO.
Check out photo #22.
Look at the open door onto the deck.
Look at the “reflection” in the door’s glass pane.
Photoshoppers….
Debtpocalypse –
No photoshopping on that image. A careful look at #21 would show you that there is a window just behind that door … hence you see out though the patio.
Definitely some photoshopping going on… (True there is a window in the subsequent photo but it does not go all the way down to the bottom of the floor.)
The prices on Pine really got out of control during the bubble years. Although the houses are quaint, and the street tree lined, Pine is not in D7, is ridiculously busy, and the blocks west of Divis are close to the projects. Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what’s going on with the low income housing in that neighborhood?
[Editor’s Note: Assuming you mean Westside Court, this is the last we heard: JustQuotes: Additional Details (Like Dollars) On Keeping Hope SF Alive.]
you can see the windowsill behind the glass door, it is not photoshopping.
Willow
Take a close look..I am happy to admit when it happens. If it is happening here then find another instance or a reason (making the sky more blue etc… ) ok enough of this.
According to a realtor I talked to, the low income housing in is about to be pulled out and replaced with Miss Daisy Mae’s lily white school for girls, any day now.
The square footage is probably correct: houses on that street go WAY back.
Pine at Lyon is not as bad as the rest of Pine. Traffic thins out somewhat (though it’s still busy by any stretch of the imagination) and the homes are really nice. Crime isn’t much higher than other busy streets in Pac Heights (fair number of burglaries). Probably not worth that kind of price, but it’s a nice home, and lots of home for the money.
The area reminds me of the area, where I used to screw around on my bike when I was younger. Click the link below.
Yes…I was wrong. Time to go see my optometrist!
I think somehow they got their hands on my parents’ discarded 1970’s cabinets.
Ex-actly
You have to check the actual backside of the wall (without a window to the ground) as revealed through the glass of the door in Photo #21.
You’d also can ask yourself, “Self: if I am in the living room, and am looking more or less square-on to said-door, why aren’t I gazing upon a reflection of myself or the room? Whence the source of this mysterious urban reflection?”
If you want to go a little further back, a contractor (who RIP) paid $600k in 2002, and flipped it to a couple of brothers in 2003 who IIRC went on the Planning Commission to defend their project as it was going to be “their home”. Soon after the project was done *surprise* it went on the market. :rolleyes:
There may have been issues with the remodel/expansion as scaffolding went up at least twice after the 2006 closing (but then, maybe they just wanted different paint colors).
BTW, I think (at least one of) those decks went in after the project was “finaled” (i’m just saying).
They toooootally ‘shopped the Goodyear blimp into the sky in photo #24 (above the Transamerica).
Kidding aside, keep in mind for there to be a photoshop crime, there must be a photoshop motive. How would photoshopping the image in that door on #21 improve the look of the room ? I don’t see any advantage. Deleting space heaters, improving views, removing ugly street signs or power lines : those changes “improve” the perception of the property.
Here’s a different question : does anyone know what material was used in the rear decking ? It doesn’t look like the standard redwood.
Finally a post on a house. It was starting to feel a little too curbed around here lately! 9 posts with only one home to comment on…
Anyway, I’d say that $2.5 seems very high here for this neighborhood. There are a few blocks of Pine that are OK but by and large I’d say that none of them could really sustain a $3M home, and $2.5 is at the outer limits. If the $500psf is correct (and I suspect that it’s too low in reality) than maybe it’s not such a bad price / value, but regardless — it’s priced at below 2006 levels now.
1924 Pine (see name link for website) has been marketed for quite some time now with no takers at $1.7M and $700psf. This is a death blow to those sellers if the $500psf metric is correct as it would mean that 1924 would be closer to $1.21M. I might add that for $1.21 I’d buy 1924 Pine tomorrow.
Piedmont, I agree on the recessed cans. Yuck, they make the ceiling look pockmarked. Hopefully they go away soon.
I am patiently waiting for the demise of the chocolate-brown dining room wall myself.
This is a death blow to those sellers if the $500psf metric is correct as it would mean that 1924 would be closer to $1.21M. I might add that for $1.21 I’d buy 1924 Pine tomorrow
If something really is twice as large you often are going to see downward shifts for $psqft. And sorry to say, but this property is what 4 or 5 % off July 2006?
anonn, I was just making a comparison that two similar houses have very different psf comps 500 vs. 700. Even with some moderate adjustment for diminishing sqft returns — I think it is fair to say that 3016 is hurtful to 1924. FWIW — I’d buy 1924 for $1.4M.
As for 3016 being 4 to 5% off its 2006 price — yes, that is correct in terms of list price. But of course, it hasn’t sold yet either. The ’06 sale price certainly reeks of an auction style high bid given the quirky sales figure. $2,725. They probably overpaid 😉 just like everyone else!
It hasn’t sold yet, granted. But the one house is twice as large. Yes, the square footage comp is different. “Probably overpaid ;)” — over it.
So, whether or not the sellers “overpaid” in 2006, what’s the prediction for selling price, as the list is only off 5% from last sale?
I don’t know the area well (except for the trader Joe’s parking lot a few houses away across Maasonic – very poorly laid out!), so I don’t have any insight into values there. Just for fun I’ll throw out a wild guess of $2.2M. In the absence of specific information/insight I’ll just go with a baseline 20% off from last sale.
over it.
Thanks for getting the humor.
As for selling price — I’m of the opinion that certain homes will just lag/drag on the market. I may go visit this one in person, but I think this has stalefish written all over it.
Can anyone explain to me why it is necessary to have so many photos on a listing? It is getting pretty tedious to have umpteen shots of a hallway or bathroom, and multiple views of a living room. Enough already. I have a formula that works for me: 12 photos = interesting place that sells itself well; 20 photos = less interesting place that is being pushed too hard; >25 photos = smacks of hysteria.
Earlier today, looking around on Redfin, I saw no (or few) sfr transactions in Lower Pacific Heights in last one year or so. As far as I can tell, there are no good comps for this place. (Can someone verify this for me? Or is there a bug in Redfin.)
So, yeah, I think between eddy and LMRiM, they have nailed it.
My advice to seller, if they are serious about selling, drop the price to $2M and hope someone gets excited.
This is a friend’s house and I’ve been inside it several times–it is lovely in person, and the pictures really do not do it justice, especially the kitchen. It’s a fabulous family home, with great decks, a nice backyard and an excellent floorplan for both a family and for entertaining. If it was in our price range, I’d buy it in a heartbeat. I’ve loved it since the first time I visited it and I recommend seeing it in person before passing judgement.
Earlier today, looking around on Redfin, I saw no (or few) sfr transactions in Lower Pacific Heights in last one year or so
2265 California got into contract today. Technically 7-B but in most folks’ minds Lower Pac Heights. I see only a few SFRs since mid October myself for 6-C, tho, you’re right. As for this Pine Street property if it really is that large and nice I see no reason why it won’t go for ~2.6M. There are several newer, larger, 6-C SFRs that have hit the market in the last week so it seems as if a market is taking shape. Let’s watch and see.
@Oceangoer who asked Can anyone explain to me why it is necessary to have so many photos on a listing
I think the MLS site was built in the ’90s and never renovated 😉
They need to be using Flash embeds or Javascript slideshows with time delays and image overlays, so that they can cycle over how many ever photos they have 2 or 5 or 22 or whatever, without seeming excessive. It is so easy to code and will go a long way…
While Property Shark says that the property area is 4517, the 2006 listing has the following remark: “Approximately 3,955 square feet, per architect.” That would make the 2006 price $689/sqft.
“I think the MLS site was built in the ’90s and never renovated 😉
They need to be using Flash embeds or Javascript slideshows…”
… if they want to alienate the maximum potential buyers.
I do like the “’90s renovation” joke though.
Yeah, there are some technical improvements that could be done to sfarmls.com, but relying upon Flash means that sfarmls.com becomes yet another unpaid salesperson for adobe.com.
(“Your browser is not enabled to view this version of Flash content. Would you like to upgrade ?” “Yes, please allocate even more of my eyeball, my CPU time, computer memory, and my power bill towards this proprietary content. I gladly give it away for free.”)
“I think the MLS site was built in the ’90s and never renovated ;)”
Nonsense. They just added the “Greenpoint Score”. They do what they feel is necessary to mislead buyers. That’s the whole purpose of making that site public. They TOOK OFF the DOM numbers when they decided it was giving the buyers too much power over them.
Making the photos better was probably tested, and determined that all the photoshopping and stretching to make rooms look bigger) would be too obvious.
Truste me, there are MILLIONS of dollars at stake. They will do WHATEVER they can to mislead buyers. That’s the whole point of making it public. If it can’t serve that purpose, they’ll just take it down.
Don’t you think that’s a little over the top, tipster ? The sole purpose of sfarmls.com is to mislead people ?
The purpose of sfarmls.com is to attract buyers to properties marketed by SFAR members. That alone is plenty of reason to host sfarmls.com.
However I do agree that sfarmls.com could do a lot more to give buyers the info needed for a home purchase. They obviously have better information in their DB but are not making it available to the public for free. You have to pay one of their members a commission to see the rest of the data.
… or use the expanding services offered by redfin, trulia, zillow, etc. I used to semi-automatically collect sales comp data myself until these newer independent RE websites came online.
Can anyone explain to me why it is necessary to have so many photos on a listing?
the more pictures the more likely you’ll have serious buyers show up IMO.
I personally think that there needs to be at least
-2 pictures of living roomm
-2-3 pictures of kitchen
-2 pics of master bedroom
-1 pic of dining room
-1 pic of every bathroom
-1 pic of every non-master bedroom
-1 pic of front
-1 pic of back.
that will likely come under your 20 picture “pushing too hard” limit, but not necessarily.
buyers like me don’t want to waste our time on a crappy listing.
if I don’t see a picture on the listing, I’m assuming they’re hiding something.
example: no pic of the bathroom, probably needs renovation.
no pic of a bedroom: probably shag carpeting.
I’d rather have 43 pics than 4 pics.
that said: it is tiring when they show pictures of things in the neighborhood.
like I can’t figure out that there’s a starbucks down the corner, or that the Palace of Fine Arts is 3 blocks away.
slightly OT, but will the popularity of relatively new tools like redfin, ziprealty, zillow, trulia, and particularly propertyshark have an impact on the market?
Buyers have access to far more information than ever before about property history, and neighborhood trends. will this make the buyer more savvy, and less likely to overpay?
are realtors encountering more savvy buyers now?
that said: it is tiring when they show pictures of things in the neighborhood.
like I can’t figure out that there’s a starbucks down the corner, or that the Palace of Fine Arts is 3 blocks away.
I think they’re sort of tired too. However, the practice is aimed at out of towners more than anything. Like you! j/k
1924 Pine just sold for 1.695M, @ ~698 a foot, and down from a 1.795M initial list price. They bought it, already remodelled, for 850K in 9/97.
Great news on 1924 Pine. Thanks for the update! Did is close, or just go into escrow? A bit surprised they got their ask price, but that is a pretty fair price and should help the comp for 3016 for sure. There was a SFH on Webster just south of California (LPH) that sold a few months ago for around $1.8 or so and I think around ~900psf. It was a nice home too. Pretty interesting to see the appreciation on 1924.
I think they’re sort of tired too. However, the practice is aimed at out of towners more than anything. Like you! j/k
ROFL.
score: you: 1. Me: 0.
🙂
@ Eddy, it closed.
Last year it would have sold for the 1.795M price, IMO.
I agree with what others have said. I think it’s fair to make a blanket statement that in markets such as this one, neighborhoods bordering blue chip neighorhoods which try to pass themselves off as blue chip neighborhoods are likely to take it on the chin. (And a 12 year hold a safe hedge against such a loss.)
prices that are unmatched in most markets.
I don’t have all the facts, but I heard through my painter (who worked on the house) that there were some problems with the last renovation, covered up mold, bad workmanship, etc. The scaffold had to go back up to fix the poor facade work.
Contractor moved back to China, previous owner claims no responsibility and so on. I think the current owner was going to have to sue the contractor, previous owner, real estate agent, basically everyone in order to get it fixed.
Completely agree on the 12 year hold point. I actually think 1925 could have got a bit more than 1.8 last year. I think we’re going to see a hard floor around $1.6M for SFH’s in prime parts of the city. We’re not there yet, but I just think there are too many people that want these homes. I am curious to see what becomes of 3016 in this market. Given the 1924 comp I think this has a better chance getting close to ask. It could still waiver IMO.
re: sfarmls.com i noticed that lately, a lot of units that according to my guess went into contract, are taken off the database instead of showing as “active/pending”. this is especially the case for the homes that were asking below their peers and other recent comps, which makes me confident that they went into contract rather than taken off the market. anyone know if this is a new gimmick from the realtors? keep the low comps off the radar.
To add to what condoshopper is saying, 1924 Pine has been off and on the MLS since Sept 2008. It was last delisted from MLS 3/27/2009. So I wonder if the sale will be recorded in MLS.
All of the above according to Redfin:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/1924-Pine-St-94109/home/571502
If I know Realtors, it will be put back on the MLS for its sale price and the numbers will reflect that it sold for 100% of asking in 1 day. Lower Pacific Heights is Hot, Hot, Hot!
For the third time, the sale of 1924 Pine WAS recorded in the MLS at 1.695M after 42 DOM. It clearly shows a 100K reduction. I’m not sure why Chuckie asked if the sale will be recorded. And I sure do not know what Tipster is talking about, nor do I think does he.
For some reason 1924 is still being marketed on Craigslist?
Wiithdrawn from market; although I drove by the home just yesterday and there were some people outside clearly looking at the place with intent.
Another would-be seller who is trapped. At $2.595M the seller was already willing to realize a loss in excess of $250K on the 3 year hold, but the market apparently demands more.
It’s worth remembering that when we see places sell for “only” a few percent below their 2006 prices (or 2007, etc.), those are the “winners”. The losers of the beauty pageant have to withdraw and lick their wounds. Hold and hope.
3016 Pine BOM – 2.35, last sold 06 for 2.725. 500k+ up in smoke….