CFAH

388 Lansdale
It’s more or less a push in terms of appreciation for 388 Lansdale (in more ways than one), as the sale of the 5,000 square foot Sherwood Forest home closed escrow today with a reported contract price of $1,920,000 ($384 per square foot).
From a plugged-in “Geo” last June: “I figure this one goes for $1.9ish at the end of the day which is 10% off the ask, and $380/ft². It is a lot of interesting house on a quiet, well located street.”
Originally asking $2,100,000, the house had been purchased for $1,950,000 in 2007.
A White House To End A Black Week [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Honestly_Now

    For the record, the sq ft price was $428. The house is not 5,000 sq ft it is 4,479. Buyers will be dropping a tidy amount to bring this one up to date and condition.
    [Editor’s Note: Damn those MLS facts and figures.]

  2. Posted by Gil

    Sherwood Forest is directly adjacent to Miraloma Park which was grouped with the Sunnyside neighborhood in the price drop survey posted the other day.
    Not saying that Miraloma Park should be grouped with Sherwood Forest, but it has far more in common with SF than Sunnyside. Views, non-grid street pattern, hills and plenty of front yard greenscape. Several homes in MP have sold for a million or more. I don’t believe Sunnyside homes have sold for anywhere near a million.
    As I recall the survey said Miraloma/Sunnyside had dropped 21% from the peak. That is not accurate from what I can tell. More like a 10% drop in MP. Larger than this one in Sherwood Forest but not near as large as Sunnyside.

  3. Posted by anonn

    For what it’s worth, thanks for putting up an SFR apple that shows the singular market for one attractive, non-distressed, peak year to now property had nothing to do with 20 percent off.

  4. Posted by weatherman

    Considering price depreciation noted between 2007 and 2009 for other properties in SF, it doesn’t seem like they did that badly on this one!

  5. Posted by Anon

    Gil, why all three neighborhoods have in common is that they are depressingly suburban, depressingly doggy, and depressingly inconvenient (unless you work in SV, in which case you might as well live in a nicer suburban neighborhood with better weather and better schools). I can’t imagine dropping 2M here. I’d happily take a third of the space for a place in actual SF.

  6. Posted by West Side Story

    Geo – nice call!
    Regarding this 2007 sale as being peak year, I’m not so sure. Wish I had data to support my impression (there is so little turnover around here and house to house can vary a lot), but I remember this 2007 sale very well as I was getting a refi appraisal right at that time.
    I distinctly remember thinking that the 388 2007 sale was a clear sign that we had passed and were heading downhill off of peak.
    My refi appraisal definitely validated that thinking (yeah, I know that a refi appraisal and a sale are different animals). And I’m sure anonn will take me to task for not being a “professional”….
    No matter, this seems an excellent outcome for 388 with minimal depreciation over the last 2 years. And it is a perfect apple. I just don’t happen to think it’s flat off of peak. Of course 101 Lansdale sold in 8/09 for $2.572 ($675 sq. ft.), way more than I thought it would. Guess I really am that mythical creature, a home-owning bear.
    To Anon 6:36 – I post rarely (and read infrequently now that LMRiM has gone and ex-SFer posts less), but I will occasionally pipe up re: this part of town. I will just assume that you merely forgot to type “For Me” or “To Me” or some such qualifying language in your post.
    I know that not everyone loves these western neighborhoods, just as I don’t particularly care to live in “actual” or “real” SF, although I could. To each his own. But please remember that you are discussing subjective matters and those are your opinions which may or may not be shared by others.
    I will think of you the next time I zip home, park right in front of my house, and share a bottle of wine with my neighbors as we watch the sun set over the Farallons…. (I’m sure my multi-generation SF native friends will be amused to find out they don’t actually live in SF!)

  7. Posted by Honestly_Now

    Anon – as West Side said, it is up to one’s taste. Living in Sherwood has its pros and cons. Pros: lots of easy parking, open space, knowing lots of neighbors, quiet, trees, great views of ocean to bay, Shangri-la when the fog is below us and the valley is shrouded, lots of sq. footage for the $, detached houses, West Portal and Glen Park villages, access to Bart in 5 minutes / Muni to downtown & PacBell / SFO in 17 minutes, 280 extension to downtown in 10 minutes, protected from the prevailing winds on the south side of Mt Davidson, great southerly exposure, very good public /private schools. Cons – fog in the summer (this is a major drag for me), slower pace, distance from North Beach, view is not of downtown/bridges, larger diversity/disparity in types of housing vs. Marina, Richmond, Sunset uniformity, much older average population (although that is cycling as the older folks move away or pass-on). Reduce the number of foggy days during the summer by 50% and I would be really happy instead of just happy. I grew-up in the Marina in the 60’s to 70’s. This side of town is different.

  8. Posted by anonn

    West Side,
    Re: 2007 being the peak year over there, you would know better than I. I made a decent case for 2008 being the peak for Miraloma Park sometime last year on SS. Citywide minus D10 and the two worst parts of D3, I think it’s easiest to say that ’07 was the peak. When it comes down to individual neighborhoods and particular quarters of any year it’s pretty tough, for reasons mentioned in the Paragon thread.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles