CFAH

1440 Kearny: Stairs
Asking $2,850,000 in October of 2008, the list price for 1440 Kearny was reduced three times over the course of the past ten months and was last asking $2,295,000 (and noting “VERY MOTIVATED!”) with a new new listing in June which was then withdrawn.
But as a plugged-in tipster notes, 1440 Kearny is back on the market with a new new new listing and asking $2,995,000. Has upper-end exuberance on the sales side returned?
Again, purchased for $1,995,000 in April 2004 (and we’re still digging the style and views).
1440 Kearny: View
∙ Listing: 1440 Kearny (3/2.5) – $2,995,000 [MLS]
Sometimes It’s Simply The View(s), And Sometimes It’s Not [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    When fishing you don’t expect a bite every time you cast the bait into the water. Each time the hooked bait hits the water it makes a splash that catches the attention of fish. Thinking it might be real prey, fish will investigate. If convinced that the bait is real prey, a fish will bite and do so quickly before the prey gets away. But most of the time the fish aren’t fooled so the bait lays there in the water, lifeless and looking even less appetizing.
    So the fisherman keeps casting away so long as the beer and daylight hold out.

  2. Posted by tipster

    Something seems unusual about the 2004 sale price. It sold for $3M in 2001, and then 1.995 in 2004? Did prices fall by 33% in those three plus years? I think not.
    Could they have paid $1.995 in 2004 and also paid the seller an extra $1M or more for “artwork” or something, which would have had the effect of lowering their property tax bill.
    If so, now they are just trying to get their money out.
    yes, I know, it’s the usual speculation from me.
    [Editor’s Note: 1440 Kearny is one in a two-unit building, the 2001 sale was likely for both.]

  3. Posted by Chad

    Editor asks “Has upper-end exuberance on the sales side returned.”
    No. Irrational Exuberance has re-surfaced !

  4. Posted by tipster

    I don’t think so. The listing says two units and property shark lists 1440 and 1442 on the same lot, so that looks like those are it for the property.
    In 1995, there is a sale of 1440 to Kirkham, shortly after is was constructed. No sale of 1442, so Kirkham probably bought the whole building.
    In 2001, sale from Kirkham to Kuhn of 1440 for $3M. But in 2005, there is a sale of 1442 by Kirkham to Ganis. So that tells me the 2001 sale of 1440 was *not* for the whole building, it tells me that Kuhn bought 1440 for $3M in 2001, Kirkham retained 1442 in 2001, and and Ganis later bought 1442 (in 2005).
    In 2004, Kuhn sells 1440 to Wasserman for 1.995M. $1M less than he paid.
    Graphically:
    1440: Kirkham –> Kuhn($3M) –> Wasserman ($2M)
    1442: Kirkham ———————>Ganis
    I smell a rat. But I also smell a seller who is trying to get out about what he paid, not get an extra $1M. Probably both scenarios are unrealistic.

  5. Posted by anon

    Since a price cut is now called a “price improvement” in realtorspeak, what’s the marketing term for a price increase? I like price exaggeration.

  6. Posted by unwarrantedinlaw

    This property has been an interesting presence in the market for a long time. Milkshake boy is probably right.
    Though I noticed that the Zillow estimates for an SFR I own and SFR’s that belong to friends of mine in Pacific Heights have risen by 20% since early May. There are plenty of criticisms of Zillow estimates, of course.
    But I think the market lows for these types of properties were in March. March was when fear and panic ruled the markets. So the contracts were signed in March, and the closings hit in early May. Markets have soared since then.

  7. Posted by tipster

    ^ Quite possibly the weakest argument I’ve seen.
    When all the support you can find is a “zestimate”, you’re skating on pretty thin ice.
    Just to see how accurate those “zestimates” are, those same “zestimates” show prices dropping on the SAME HOMES by about 20% in late 2006/early 2007. I don’t remember any such actual drops, nor anyone using a “zestimate” to support any position (at least not with a straight face).
    The last time i can recall a zestimate that was brought up, was here, when it was ridiculed as being more than twice what the property ended up selling for, and remained that way even after the sale!
    https://socketsite.com/archives/2008/07/1487_mckinnon_sells_for_below_below_below_market_value.html

  8. Posted by unwarrantedinlaw

    Thanks Tipster for your reminder yesterday that zestimates are bogus. Still I find it interesting that those Pac Hgts SFR’s show 20% increases off lows of early May. This coincides with what I’m seeing in the market for these houses.
    Maybe believing in zestimates is like being a birther. (btw, wonder why he doesn’t just show the original copy of his birth certificate, to make all those silly people go away.)

  9. Posted by tipster

    UIL,
    Zillow is an automated system. It has an estimate that it refines as actual sales occur. What really throws it off are gut rehabs where extra space got added, because the sale price is so much higher than the estimate. Thinking prices are skyrocketing when it sees that, it frantically raises its estimates to the point of ridiculousness.
    So 2949 Sacramento sells for twice the estimate, a few other rehabs do too, and zillow goes crazy trying to adjust everyrthingg upwards. Its to the point that even as stuff sells, zillow is not even adjusting the estimate to the sale price: it estimates higher than the actual price because of the distortions going on now as remodelers bail out.
    Better to go to redfin and type in 94115. You’ll see inventory Way up and sales Way down, on a YOY basis. Only one way prices can head in that scenario: down.
    Zillow is more accurate in the burbs, where major remodels and additions are more rare. In SF, it doesn’t work at all. It’s being distorted right now by the fact that only the good stuff is selling. But hey, if it gives you hope in the face of what’s coming, may as well try to bring it up on every thread, as you are Clearly doing.

  10. Posted by avwh

    I’ve toured this place. Some very nice features, as the images show.
    plusses:
    views, garden/deck, light from 3 sides, nice kitchen & bathrms, nice staircase interior architecture
    minuses:
    entrance thru garage, empty lots on 2 sides that COULD be developed, 3 levels (lots of stair-climbing), outside architecture “meh” at best, steep site for walking anywhere, impossible guest parking

  11. Posted by diemos

    “wonder why he doesn’t just show the original copy of his birth certificate, to make all those silly people go away.”
    He did. Facts are the last thing these people are interested in.

  12. Posted by SocketSite

    UPDATE: Perhaps it was simply a typo (or a successful attempt to catch our attention), but after 7 days on the MLS at $2,995,000 the list price for 1440 Kearny is back to $2,295,000.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Recent Articles