As a plugged-in tipster catches the moving trucks in action this morning, the sale of 3016 Pine Street closes escrow this afternoon with a reported contract price of $2,260,000.
Although originally listed for 13 percent more eight months ago, according to industry statistics the sale will be recorded at 4 percent under its last asking price of $2,350,000 and with 104 days on the market for the single-family Lower Pacific Heights house.
And at $2,260,000 it’s an apples to apples sale at 17 percent under its July 2006 purchase price of $2,725,000 for the completely remodeled District 6 home.
∙ An Apple Rather Than Cone On The Pine Street Tree (3016 Pine) [SocketSite]
∙ A Potentially Bitter Apple In Lower Pacific Heights: 3016 Pine Returns [SocketSite]
∙ San Francisco Real Estate Districts: Maps And Neighborhoods [SocketSite]
Nice shot from the Neighbor! It was reported on another thread that it was 4517sf. So $500/psf. Pretty crazy if that is accurate. Hard to fathom that this place commanded $2.725 in 2006. Whenever I see an odd sale price like $2,260 you know there was some finagling to get there. The fact that it went straight to InEscrow-Firm also indicated that whoever bought it spent some time getting comfortable with it. Anyway, good data point for LPH. There was a SFH on Buchanan in LPH that took offers and closed recently in record time. Too bad SS didn’t cover it as it was a pretty cool home and a sign that top quality / high end is still kicking and breathing a bit. To me, the dichotomy of the high end / low end is the real story of SF right now.
[Editor’s Note: Assuming you mean Broderick not Buchanan, that would likely be 1711 which sold for $2,910,000 ($749 per square foot).]
Continuing the 1711 Broderick thread — Wow!! That listing was literally one block from the notorious “housing project” at Broderick & Sutter. Personally, I can’t stand these “can lights” and “great room” remodels, but evidently they still work in SF.
$450K loss? According to anonn, this must be a condo, because as we all know, only condos are taking the biggest hits right now.
Hmmm… The $/sqft seem to be very condo like. But my, what awfully large square footage you have, grandma condo!
Sure the percentage loss for this SFR was “only” 17%, but that SFR premium tends to bite you on the way down: $450K loss on an SFR or a condo hurts just as bad.
Too bad the bears were so wrong on this one. From LMRiM in April:
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.
That blowhard. What did he know!
The quip is deemed inappropriate, but the baiting remains. LOL.
[Editor’s Note: A
response“quip” about not responding? If you really don’t want to respond, don’t take the bait in the first place.]Nice one tipster. So now a 17% loss on a SFH is equivalent to the 45% losses being seen on some condos in other threads because they both involve losing a lot of money so therefore Anonn must be wrong about condo’s and SFR’s being different markets right now. So let me make sure I am understanding you here, when percentages (including ones you make up) support you they are relevant but when the percentages don’t, they are irrelevant and the only thing that matters is someone hurt a lot in both cases.
You are really starting to stretch a bit too much in your constant desire to try to call out and mock Anonn.
Yes, it was 1711 Broderick. It was an interesting situation. Good size, well finished and sold fast. I think it’s safe to say that $750 should be considered the max price in LPH unless it’s in one of the better streets right off California. I was surprised 1711 sold so quick given its proximity to some less desirable areas. But the residents there take good care of the neighborhood so I could see how someone could overlook it.
Face it, this just isn’t about condos vs SFRs, it’s about more desirable vs less desirable.
Condos are less desirable than SFRs. Busy streets are less desirable than quiet streets. Bad layouts are less desirable than good ones.
When real estate is hard to find, people overlook the undesirable features. When real estate is plentiful, they do not overlook the undesirable features.
Real estate is plentiful right now. Buyers looking to buy will just refuse to buy the properties with problems when prices are similar to those without the problems. The first thing that happens is these places just sit. The nicer properties get sold more quickly until the prices of the lesser ones start pulling buyers away.
Therefore, a lot of properties that got bid up when real estate was scarce take real hard falls – though it can take awhile for that to happen. But they DO fall, and when that happens, some buyers stop just buying the nicest places, and trade into a property with a problem, that has a better $psft price. That ultimately pulls buyers OUT of the market for the more desirable places, and soon, prices for the more desirable properties fall too.
So SFRs on quiet streets will fall too, as bargain hunters decide that a condo for half the price is worth the trade off and stop buying them as much. It’s not like SFRs are somehow immune, it’s that the process takes time and properties in good locations with good layouts and no neighbor noise issues will be the last to fall. But fall they will: you can count on it.
That’s essentially the same argument as “everybody will move to Contra Costa if the price difference becomes drastic enough.” Clearly that has by now long been shown to be nonsense.
You don’t factor that some people want houses, and some people want flats. You don’t factor that for those who want flats or condos, they can look at the — yes, challenged — 1M+ condo market right now and find tons of inventory. Much of it new and with attractive amenities. YOu don’t factor that some people will only want certain areas, period. Nor do you factor that the amount of properties changing hands was never all that remarkably high, nor will it ever be.
Low inventory turn in SF is clearly a major driver but it’s impossible to argue against Tipster’s 12:38 post. It is basic econ and it is sound logic. The contra costa example is not a fair comparison as no one ever maid that broad claim AFAIK. There are other logic points and to support that price declines will be limited by pent up demand. The reality is that it’s all a very complex set of economic interactions and real estate doesn’t react as quickly as commodities due to low inventor turn and major external factors such as government intervention.
In a free market, real estate would likely be decimated as interest rates would be higher and this would cause massive defaults and foreclosures. This is what many naive people assumed would happen in 06/07, but the government stepped in and performed some wizardry to slow the housing decline. And its obviously what the economy needed. The impact in SF has been an interesting one to watch since there is clearly a pent up demand willing to scoop up properties that are priced “correctly”.
I think that works for sectors, not unilaterally. As you well know there is specific demand, finite supply, and a small buyer group in many micro markets every single year regardless. The “everyone will move outside the city” if it gets cheap enough elsewhere point gets made on here constantly. And I fault it. People want to live in certain areas, even within the city. Contra Costa was just a bit of hyperbole.
Drove by this morning and it looks like remodeling work is being done. There is a pile of plaster/debris in the garage.
This home has just been listed for $3.65M — though it has been pretty extensively remodeled since the purchase 12/2009.
Someone has really big cojones to try to flip this one. Good luck to all.