2100 Pacific #9: Living
While it’s not 2006 Washington, 2100 Pacific does play in the same league. And the sale of the 5,190 square foot full-floor 2100 Pacific #9 closed escrow today with a reported contract price of $7,250,000 (27% under its original asking).
2100 Pacific #9: Living Room View
Live As Big As A Lurie (2100 Pacific Avenue #9 On The Market) [SocketSite]
2006 Washington Number 4 Returns Asking 32 (Plus) Percent Less [SocketSite]
The Full Floor Plan Monty For 2006 Washington Number Four [SocketSite]

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Rincon Hill Billy

    Wanna be a — baller, shot caller
    Twenty inch blades — on the Impala
    A caller gettin laid tonight
    Swisher rolled tight, gotta spray my ice
    I hit the HIIIGHWAY, making money the FLYYYY WAY
    But there’s got to be a BETT-ER WAYY!
    A better way, better way, YEAH-AHHHH

  2. Posted by eddy

    $1400 psf. I think I pretty much nailed this one in my comments on the original thread. The buyers here could have most certainly done better by holding a firm negotiating position but at these price levels it’s not uncommon for fatigue to set in and buyers just cave. Anyone know who represented the buyer on this deal?
    This comp would put 2006 Washington at about $7.7M. 1001 California comps in at just over $5M. Seems about right.

  3. Posted by jessep

    Looks like Marie Antoinette lost her head (~26% down)

  4. Posted by anonnn

    Rincon Hill Billy, huh?
    Eddy, I agree.
    Jessep, I wouldn’t call 1400psf (plus with those HOA’s) anywhere near “losing her head.” Just b/c they listed the property ridiculously high, and it sold for absurdly high, doesn’t mean that we’ll be buying sfh in Pac Heights for 150k anytime soon as some here love to predict.

  5. Posted by sleepiguy

    Eddy was right before and he’s right now…
    Even if this were 07, I don’t think this place could’ve brought in more than 7.5. View condos weren’t selling for much more than that, unless they were much, much larger.

  6. Posted by Mole Man

    What people here have been predicting is a market correction where prices return to the historical medians that have previously persisted over long periods of time and which have always been relatively high in this area. The idea of a unit in Pacific Heights coming available for a hundred and fifty thousand or so is nothing but a straw man evoked through emotive projection.

  7. Posted by San FronziScheme

    The idea of a unit in Pacific Heights coming available for a hundred and fifty thousand or so is nothing but a straw man evoked through emotive projection.
    Now, that was an emotive post…
    Can you point us to this prediction? Even the bearest of the bears never said anything even close to half of that.
    What was predicted by bears is that a big chunk of the bubble gains from 1998-2008 in SF would be given back and that it would take some time. We’re only 18 months into the SF RE correction, therefore it’s a bit early to say it is over. But so far 20% on average and even the darlings of the previous bubble have deflated in these proportions.
    So far we’re on track.

  8. Posted by anonn

    Fronzi, in one post today you’re saying how LMRiM never posted a preemptive insult. And in this one you’re calling someone’s jokey hyperbole “emotive”, using the royal we you envision yourself a part of, and going on to pat yourself on the back while overstating every single thing. Great job.

  9. Posted by hangemhi

    “down 26%”
    i’ve stopped checking in on SS because of stupid posts and comments like this. it’s only down from what they tried to get. It’s up nearly 3 fold from it’s 1997 $2.8M sale.
    fronzi says we’re going to “give back much of the 98 to 08 gain”. ahh, so shouldn’t we have expected a $3.25M sale vs. a $7.25M sale?????
    so if they had asked $21M and it sold for $7M now that would be even more aweful. give me a break.
    the real story here is that a coop sold for close to $1500 SqFt when it has $4400/mo HOA dues and that appears to be about what it would have sold for in the past few years as well. looks like a flat sale to me, but WAY up from ’97.
    [Editor’s Note: For some strange reason the infamous Yogi Berra (“nobody goes there anymore, it’s too crowded”) can’t help but come to mind.]

  10. Posted by San FronziScheme

    fluj,
    Mole Man started with the generic “people” and launched a trollesque attempt at deriding bears. I followed with the very generic “please tell us” that you also use pretty commonly (just google “tell us anonn” or “tell us fluj” in the SS query box. You’re attacking on the form, and not the substance, and even on the form you’re starting with taking my post out of context. Puhleeeze.
    hangemhi,
    Same comment more or less. I said it would take time, didn’t I? Right after the sentence you quoted… Crickets I hear? Time is the major factor here and few markets have ever fallen overnight from their top to their bottom, now, have they? But go ahead and snatch only the part of my post that suits your goals. BTW, I also saw the “27% down” comment as what it was, a comment on the lowered expectation that can be misconstrued as a comment on the value of this specific property. But you cannot know that and you nevertheless slapped my name along with this imperfect piece of data. Typical.

  11. Posted by anonn

    There was no substance in anything you said Substance? Fronzi. 1998-2008 — nothing new. 18 months — incorrect. 20 percent on average — for what? For anything you’d want? nonsense. “We’re on track” –OK Mr. R.E. Guru who has never done a thing in this town, or even lived here very long.
    Entertain the crowd? I am not part of the crowd. I formulate my own opinions from hands on knowledge and experience. You? You’re someone who plays to the crowd purely by regurgitating conventional bear wisdom. Mixing in a hyperbole here and there. That is the only thing you really do, daily, while posting more than any other poster.

  12. Posted by John

    “I think I pretty much nailed this one in my comments on the original thread.”
    Eddy, I think you were close, but nailed it?? Your previous post sounded like you didn’t believe it would go for even $7M when it actually went over that…
    ($7M, maybe, but I don’t think it goes quick at that price. I just don’t think anyone wants to spend $7M to have 8ft ceilings.)
    still, congrats on getting closer than anyone else.

  13. Posted by eddy

    @John, I’m convinced that this buyer could have obtained this property for less what was paid. The buyers still feel good because they ‘won’ this trophy apartment at a 27% discount from original asking price. Bottom line is that this place took 6 months to sell, a 10.5% haircut and ‘low ball’ offer another 18.5% below the haircut price. I don’t think there was a line out the door and backup offers on this place by any stretch.
    My guess is that the buyer put in a ‘low ball’ offer and it was accepted immediately. The kind of situation that makes you think, “Damn!, why didn’t we offer $6M!” And this is exactly what I would have advised a client to offer on this place.
    Can anyone do a MLS lookup on who was the buyer agent?

  14. Posted by eddy

    Also, unit 1B is on the market at $649psf. No view and worst floor, but not a bad deal for 2100sqft in a prestigious building and only $1600/mo HOAs.:-) I think this will sell fairly quickly.

  15. Posted by john

    eddy,
    I hear ya but unless we have details from the actual buyer agent, then I could also guess that there were backup offers..or I could guess that there were actually offers *above* the selling price but this $7.2 one was mostly cash or something. I’m bull-ish speculating for arguments sake, but you must admit you’re also bear-ish speculating, no? (unless maybe you have more detailed info?).
    The only thing we all can go by is that it sold for $7.2M and that’s $1,400 psf..and that deserves a bit of a ‘wow’ (as in, ‘that’s a lot of money!’).
    hangemhi, I agree w/your post…

  16. Posted by eddy

    I don’t think I’m bearish at all. I think that 6 months ago I made a prediction on selling price and I came within 3% of the final bid. There is a difference between being bullish/bearish and using market data and trends to make a plausible case. $1400psf is an OK (not great) comp here and $7.2M is a lot of money. I am speculating that this could have gone for less, but my speculation is well founded.
    A better question would be why didn’t the sellers just take a dramatic reduction to $8M or $7.5M and watch the offers and overbids? Rather, they took a low ball offer. Sorry, it’s very telling about how this transaction went down. The hypothetical guess/speculations you posed are being made after the fact and not taking into consideration the details of transaction. These hypothetical bullish comments would be a totally fair statement if this home was ever listed for $7.25M or even close to this amount.
    Anyway, I understand that this is all just fodder and fun. 🙂

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Articles