On the market a little over a year ago asking $1,695,000, the John C. Campbell and Worley Wong designed 1599 Shrader Street (which Sunset magazine dubbed its “House of Tomorrow” in 1943) sold for a reported $1,600,000 in July of 2008.
Back on the market in 2009 and asking $1,495,000.
∙ Listing: 1599 Shrader (3/3) – $1,495,000 [MLS]
The Home of Tomorrow…..at yesteryear’s prices!
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
House of Tomorrow
Fo’ Real ?
I always wonder what criteria people us to come up with statements like that 😉
Chad,
I agree this house’s design is a bit bland to be called visionary even for 1943. Maybe they wanted to point out it was not yet another late art-deco styled house or a cookie-cutter box that sprouted in the Avenues or Daly.
I do believe some designs can be visionary and be called “avant-garde” for the time. One design that comes to mind is the Barcelona Pavilion from 1929 that prefigured what the mid-century design would look like. OK, that’s not a house, but I am truly amazed at Mies’ avant-garde design.
I always wonder what criteria people use to come up with statements like that 😉
Perhaps it comes with a Jetsons style people-moving tube to get up all the stairs in front of this place. Or a jetpack.
@gumby… Thanks for the link.
LOL @ “Where’s My Jetpack?: A Guide to the Amazing Science Fiction Future that Never Arrived”
I am reminded of those strange UFO type houses that became very popular and “hip” during the 60s when we were all in the space exploration / moon landing frenzy, starting right from when JFK said “We choose to go to the moon not because it is easy, but because it is haaaarrrrd.”
Not quite the caliber of the LA case book houses, but earlier and pretty nice nontheless. I kinda like it. Wish there were more photos.
So I can have that condo in a seedy part of SF or save $500k and buy this place, which seems pretty nice? I think I know which one I would choose…
The listing doesn’t mention the sqft. Is it really that small?? It seems pretty normal from the pictures.
I like how 1/10th of the towers peeking out over the Presidio is counted as “GG Bridge Views”.
That said, this place looks pretty neat.
Parking? Is there any on the property, at all? Does anyone know?
Says there is a “1bed, 1bath guest quarters with separate entry” and “drop dead views.”
Is that 1/1 separate from the listed 3/3?
Parking? Is there any on the property, at all? Does anyone know?
Can’t see any from the street, and the listing says none as well. Street parking around there is OK, esp. up on Belgrave, but is not automatic.
Went to the open house today. Definitely no parking.
An interesting space. The lower “apartment” shown in the lower photo above is not connected to the upstairs space, leaving only 1.5 bedrooms upstairs in the main living space (one of the “bedrooms” is separated by the living room only by a partial wall).
And, there are a lot of stairs from the street to the house…
After 33 days on the market the list price for 1599 Shrader has been reduced to $1,395,000. Once again, changed hands in July of 2008 for $1,600,000.
I bet they thought they were getting a “bargain” a year ago when they purchased this place for $95K under list. All those silly bears thinking that the economy was going to tank….
I bet they thought they were getting a “bargain” a year ago when they purchased this place for $95K under list. All those silly bears thinking that the economy was going to tank….
Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t. It didn’t have parking then either, regardless. And a 13 month hold with no improvements is not a safe bet regardless of the greater economy. It sure isn’t 20% down tho, any which way you slice it. It’s more like 6.5 % at this point. Let’s see what happens.
Check your math on the percentage, anonn. (It sold for $1.6M in 08.)
In absolute dollars, about a $300K capital loss, if it sells here (after frictional costs, of course). Not too bad, I guess, considering the enormity of the bubble.
It’s not sold yet, all calculations can be only provisional.
205K net loss at asking is 12% + 5% commission + 3% holding costs & tax – rent saved = ~20% loss.
I’d bet it sells in the 1.15-1.2M range therefore a 20% net loss before all other costs.
That tells a lot about those few months between the subprime collapse and our current local downturn.
We were in a pure suspension of disbelief. What affected others didn’t apply to us because we had a magic formula.
What if pigs could actually fly? Who were we to say otherwise?
Well, that pig isn’t flying anymore. No parking is what it is. No parking.
The previous seller experienced the same ancillary expenses. Some of you jump from “sales price” to “cost” or “loss” whenever it suits you. 1.6 – 1.495 = 105K = ~6.5%. You check your math.
Check your reading comrehension, anonn. (It was lowered to $1.395M – see Posted by: SocketSite at August 19, 2009 5:28 PM above).
About frictional costs, it’s obviously going to vary greatly. I usually just use 7% of the initial sale price as a ballpark estimate of all the costs for relatively high dollar properties.
On the way in, you’ve got all sorts of bank fees, title insurance fees, inspection fees, recording fees, prepaid points, etc. Some of these are tax deductible – many are not.
On the way out, you’ve got realtor commission (~5%), staging costs (possibly), transfer taxes (0.75%), costs to “spruce up” the place, etc. Again, some of these are deductible, most are not.
I’d be curious to hear from people who have actually gone through the process in SF what they think their all-in transactional costs were for a short hold like this.
Renters don’t face any of these costs of course.
anonn, the asking price has been lowered to $1.395.
I don’t see where it was lowered to 1.395M, still. Oh wait. There it is! My fault. Usually this website places that info at the top, right? “Update: …. ” ? So now it’s like 12 %. Let’s see what happens.
It’s still funny how you began by saying “The economy was going to tank” and then you take the asset in question, which has depreciated and tack on ancillary expenses. Only when it suits you tho.
It’s actually two different conversations, and you know that.
I tried to see this last Sunday. It was advertised as open but wasn’t.
It’s still funny how you began by saying “The economy was going to tank” and then you take the asset in question, which has depreciated and tack on ancillary expenses. Only when it suits you tho.
Sorry, anonn. I really wasn’t trying to equate the “economy tanking” with ancillary expenses + a prospective 12.8% decline in value (let’s call that 13%? – but it is still prospective and might be better or worse). I was really “anticipating” Fronzi’s insightful observation above about the summer of 08: “We were in a pure suspension of disbelief. What affected others didn’t apply to us because we had a magic formula.”
At that time, bears like me (and Fronzi, btw) were saying that buying SF real estate was going to very costly – I started saying that in December 07 (pretty good timing, I’d say, as now you are often arguing on here that 07 was the “peak”).
In that sense, I do think it makes sense to look at ancillary expenses, as a 13% drop in “FMV” is going to generate a ~$300K loss to the individual who bought in that suspension of disbelief period. Again, of course, it’s all prospective. As you said, let’s see where it actually winds up selling – if it sells of course (the owner may not be able to face the loss all at once, and therefore may seek to rent it out and absorb likely larger losses over time).
As a counterpoint, it’s useful to see what some others were saying around that time. 1599 Shrader closed in July 2008, so was probably negotiated and agreed sometime in June 2008. We happen to have one of your “best of” SS quotes – one of the many in my view that were designed to “stiffen the sinews” of prospective buyers and give them confidence (you usually do this by trying to mock bearish viewpoints), almost simultaneously with the sale of this place:
“It’s over. Sorry. Scare tactics are dead. San Francisco never really took a price hit and it won’t, either.
Posted by: fluj at June 23, 2008 9:57 AM”
Simultaneous!
All offered in the spirit of “accountability” that is so dear to you.
LOL. Though I was clearly guilty of ovestatement there, context is meaningful whether you want it to be or not. At the time of that post you and others were trying to say that enormous price hits were already here. They weren’t. Odd that this very property should be proof positive that price shifts weren’t there yet, in the context of the time I posted that bit of huff. So who are you arguing against?
Late 2007 makes me think about these Will E Coyote moments where he is right over the cliff poking his toes around. Nothing bad has happened yet. everything’s fine… And then he looks down.
And again, 13 month holds in the best of times, without improvements? Can we even qualify such maneuvers as investments? I doubt (m)any of the people who live in these think along those lines.
Late 2007 makes me think about these Will E Coyote moments where he is right over the cliff poking his toes around. Nothing bad has happened yet. everything’s fine… And then he looks down.
Why? Wile E. Coyote doesn’t hang in the air for 10 months arguing with people on the Internet before he actually falls into the canyon.
Context.
About context, anonn – if you google your quote, you will see that it was the first comment in the thread. It wasn’t a response to anything. As I said, in my view it was as I said: an attempt to “stiffen the sinews” of buyers against the ideas of those silly bears.
About already large price drops being argued in 2008, there certainly were large drops – in many districts of SF over 20% by then, although admittedly not for cherry properties in The Real SF™. Which goes to Fronzi’s point again – this buyer bought in D5, in the suspension of disbelief phase, in The Real SF™. The result is a pretty good smackdown.
I don’t know whether $300k is a lot of money to the owner or not. Hopefully not.
About whether this was an “investment” or not, who knows? As you know, circumstances change, and sometimes what was originally envisioned as a long term hold becomes a short term 13 month one. That is the element of risk, and a classic example of why you don’t pay so dramatically over fundamental value. I do think that most buyers buying last year did not think they’d suffer losses equivalent to about ~20% of the purchase price if circumstances required getting out of the asset in 13 months. As I said, you’ve got to understand the game when you’re housegambling, even if you are an unwitting participant at the table.
LOL indeed.
Paragraphs get longer as excuses get more twisted.
Though I was clearly guilty of ovestatement there, context is meaningful whether you want it to be or not. At the time of that post you and others were trying to say that enormous price hits were already here.
Nope. we were saying we had to expect a big decrease in the following several years and were pointing to the weakest data points showing the guests were leaving the party in an controlled fashion. Everyone would leave eventually and that was pretty clear.
Odd that this very property should be proof positive that price shifts weren’t there yet, in the context of the time I posted that bit of huff.
A bit of personal responsibility there. Bubble-toppers at the time believed the Realtor talk that Real SF was immune. You were at the forefront of that battle, fending off all attacks with mucho disdain and hubris.
So who are you arguing against?
People telling us it’s pretty much contained. Fundamentals haven’t changed and the economy is weaker than 2007. Prices will probably lose another 20-30% to get to prices that make sense.
Fronzi,
If I had sold this house to whomever bought it, I would have stressed the need for improvement, including a garage. You do not know what occurred.
Again with your “realtor this, realtor that” “us” “we” shpiel. Nice movement you have here, Elmer.
Because let’s be clear. I am Bugs Bunny, and you are Elmer Fudd.
Yet another double-back flip to entertain the crowd. Typical insult to get me off the tracks and get me into agressive mode. That way readers will forget the real issues.
Oh. It should have been improved! That’s a new one. What these past few months have shown us is that you seldom get back 100 % of your “improvement” dollars.
But you know that. And you will probably recognize it in what? 6 months, a year?
Typical fluj.
“San Francisco never really took a price hit and it won’t, either.” – Kenneth/”fluj”/”anonn” 2008
What’s the context for “it won’t either”?
No. “us” “we” “realtor this” — this language is in all your posts. You envision yourself as part of a brotherhood on here. It’s comical.
And me, not talking improvement? Not saying static appreciation is a sucker’s bet?
Really? Wrong.
I’ve had enough of your particular brand of nonsense for today.
The context for “It won’t, either” ? I explained that. It still took another five months to see a shift, anyway.
Fronzi, I don’t recall talking to you on here. But there you are, jumping in on a conversation between LMRiM and myself.
Michael, you pop up when you see me arguing, solely. At least Fronzi spouts his unoriginal, macro = micro, conventional bear wisdom and e-fraternity sameness in a variety of threads.
“If I had sold this house to whomever bought it, I would have stressed the need for improvement, including a garage.”
anonn, why don’t you tell us some details of your great success with 118 Manchester that you appear to have sold 30 days ago.
Bought 1/2007 for $760K, “improved” and sold 7/22/2009 for $785K. How did that work out?
Ooow! Ooow!
Can I be Foghorn Leghorn?
“Ah say, ah say son. Ya missed it! Went right by ya.”
anonn, why don’t you tell us some details of your great success with 118 Manchester that you appear to have sold 30 days ago.
Bought 1/2007 for $760K, “improved” and sold 7/22/2009 for $785K. How did that work out?
Why the constant need to go personal, Chuckie? It’s pretty odd.
When I sold it, that property was in the exact same state as when my clients purchased it. My clients did not follow through on the improvement plan that they had laid out, and that was suggested to them, by myself and others.
It’s an apple then? Prices up about 3.2% in 2.5 years? That’s outstanding! Congratulations!
Not going personal.. just trying to keep it real.
No, I think it sort of sucks because they still lost money. Yeah it sold for more. The reasons are that the lot is phenomenal, it still has a clear upside now (indeed the newest buyer is going to do the same thing to it, supposedly), and I got them a good deal/ took advantage of some mismarketing and timing in the first place. But life got in the way. They had a child first and then moved to another city for graduate school. Had they followed through with the original plan they would have profited nicely.
I got them a good deal/ took advantage of some mismarketing and timing in the first place.
I for one, am impressed. Clearly you worked a bit harder for these folks, but it is one of the reason’s I’ve said in the past that I’d have no problem using you as an agent. Not many RE professionals could produce a 2007 apple like this. I’m not crying for your client’s as you did right by them. Plus, they can always go condo in the future… all for one and one for all.
I find it entertaining that people on this site are incredibly eager to paint all realtors as (incompetent) professional liars with inexplicable mind-control abilities, but that no one seems to call out Satchel/LMRIM as a white-collar criminal.
He brags incessantly about being “inside” along with all of his sophisticated prep school/ivy league/wall street/east hampton/san rafael connections. How they always win, always know the future, game the system, always come out on top.
He’s part of the machine that brought us collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps. Then he took his blood money and stuck taxpayers with the bill. As he has admitted, it’s all basically rigged.
Yet, here among the SS crowd, he’s a hero and fluj is a demon. Because he rents in Marin and trolls a SF real estate blog preaching man-made apocalypse. That he helped (man) make.
You people are weird.
LRMIM: Hes knowledgeable and interesting to read. Look at his piece on deflation recently re-posted. Lots of people got that totally wrong. He’s also been mostly right about RE. Yeah. Mebbe he got some parts wrong like how the bond market would react to QE (as NVJ fastidiously pointed out), but all in all he’s been correct. Many here claim to have learned a lot from him.
And yes theres a lot of negativity about fluj here from time to time. But you dont see that against Garret or Kathleen, who also post here, also RE Brokers.
This site is mostly inhabited by RE bears. Maybe that’s why LRMIM in popular versus others who are bulls. (Im a bear. I would love for RE to fall another 30%. And I already OWN my own place. But I want to buy another. )
Not that I give any validity to any of amused’s allegations (and not sure why amused picked this post in particular), but has anyone noticed that San Fronzi has been as missing as LMRiM? What’s up with that?
“but that no one seems to call out Satchel/LMRIM as a white-collar criminal.”
I called him out as having the outlook and morals of a con man all the time.
I still miss him.
His analysis was always enlightening.
hahaha, i live it when people refer to “REAL SF” as if it’s bulletproof! We are only about halfway through the pain. Deal with it….
I’m told 1599 Shrader sold for $1.375M. -14%, plus transaction costs. That $225k could have been invested in jet pack R&D.
[Editor’s Note: As we published last week: Yesterday’s Value For 1943’s House Of Tomorrow (1599 Shrader).]
He’s also been mostly right about RE
No he wasn’t. He didn’t even know the city.