After three months on the market the MLS listing for 999 Green #2802 was withdrawn from the MLS without a sale (last asking $1,950,000). As of yesterday, however, the listing is active again but with a price that has been reduced to $1,795,000. Once again, purchased “off the market” for $2,500,000 in October of 2008.
As we noted in November: “Yes, the kitchen and baths could use some updating, but it’s a classic building with big views and a price 22 percent less than in 2008.” Now 28 percent.
. Listing: 999 Green Street #2802 (3/2) – $1,795,000 [MLS]
. The (Eichler) Summit Of 999 Green Street #2802 [SocketSite]
That was a quick $800K+ thrown away.
Paging tipster, lmrm, diemos, fronz, legacy dude and the rest of you
spectator losers. Doesn’t this post make you wish you bought? Looks like
the sellers of #2802 only spent around $2k/day to live there! Probably less than $60k/month. Much better than living a mediocre life in a mediocre rent controlled apartment watching life go by.
$1500 HOAs? Hoping that’s not the monthly figure…
El Bombero, I’m not sure how your post contributes to a constructive conversation. Obviously values have declined, and this property is no exception.
dch, yes, those dues are monthly.
I wish sleepy guy could buy me that condo!
$1500 HOA?
Heck, as the salesmen say: if you’re asking how much it costs…
I will reiterate my comment on the previous thread, because it’s still current — Unit #1902 is still for sale at $2.08M! Maybe #1902 doesn’t have as much of an ability to cut the price:
Bidet to you, sir.
Wonder how the owner of 999 Green #1902 feels — it’s 1 BR short (2/2.5 vs. 3/2 — apparently converted from a 3BR), 100 sq ft short, 9 floors short, but with a price $130K long ($2.08K) compared to #2802. It was bought at $1.245M in 2002 and then renovated in 2004, and was bought in 1995 at a bargain basement $577K!
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/999-Green-St-94133/unit-1902/home/1243046
Posted by: corntrollio at November 5, 2009 5:56 PM
Avocado Nightmare.
Don’t forget the to link the November 12 thread where I connected the dots regarding ownership.
okay bombero, i’ll let you prove my point.
” It was bought at $1.245M in 2002 and then renovated in 2004, and was bought in 1995 at a bargain basement $577K!”
tell me how well this investment of $120k (down payment) made in ’95 has done?
i’ll take that over “living a mediocre life in a mediocre rent controlled apartment watching life go by. ”
even after the huge crash we’re seeing i’d say these folks made out better than quietly saving their $50k/yr.
if you parse my postings you’ll see that i never advocated buying retail late in the game. i’d rather look at the glass more than half full-you see, someone sold this apartment for $2.5m in ’08!
that person clearly made out in a rather large way.
not much chance of being able to do that while
“living a mediocre life in a mediocre rent controlled apartment watching life go by. ”
now what say you bombero?
Spoken like a true salesman: “Fence sitters have no guts”, “Fence-sitters see a glass half-empty”. That talk pushed MILLIONS towards financial hardship. 25% under-water but the salesmen got their 5%!
For one guy who sold at 2.5M, you have 1 buying at that price (being mightily screwed today) and 5 priced out. How’s that for a nice reality check?
Where do the 5 priced out come from?
At its peak, the affordability index fell to the low 10s all over California! Same thing for SF at around 10. This means that if 60+% (the home-ownership rate in the US is 70%+ and in the 60s in CA) should have been able to afford a home, only 10-12% could! One buyer priced out 5 legitimate prospects who might have needed a house for having a family.
This has hard real life implications. A guy can buy his toys while the others wait or get into too much debt and in the end we all pay the bad debts of the idiots who topped off the market.
Now, based on buy/rent ratios we are obviously still in bubble zone. An SF 2010 buyer will be saddled by expenses more than twice the cost of renting (faint obfuscation from the salesman camp) and the “hope” of a profit. This means the musical chair game is not over yet and by far.
Being that this is my dream building, does anybody know what you get for $18K/yr in HOAs? I just want to make sure I’m planning in the right direction.
In fact, it would be interesting for someone to do a little value study on HOAs vs. benefits at various buildings, maybe even including frequency of assessments.
Well, a guy can dream.
Hey everyone, some people made a lot of money selling Tulips many years ago. Why, one guy made a fortune selling tulips for millions of dollars that he bought for a fraction of that.
This proves once and for all that Tulips, held long enough and purchased at the right time, are still a great investment.
Huh. Tulips, from the mighty Tipster? Capitalized no less? Not awesome. Why did you go with tulips and not pets.com? Looks like you need some new material, buddy.
“This has hard real life implications. A guy can buy his toys while the others wait or get into too much debt and in the end we all pay the bad debts of the idiots who topped off the market.”
so typical of this site-blame others for your bad choices. last i checked NO ONE put a gun to their head and forced them to buy. if you cannot afford something then don’t buy it.
“Spoken like a true salesman: “Fence sitters have no guts”, “Fence-sitters see a glass half-empty”. That talk pushed MILLIONS towards financial hardship. ” spoken like a truly bitter man who missed out. i’m not selling you anything, rather i’m giving you a free reality check. anyway, you know what they say about a fool and his money…
sure thing tipster. you can equate sf re with dutch tulips altho i believe you are missing out on the utility that the former undoubtedly provided. just b/c you did not have the foresight to invest some of your (self reported) outsize income in real property does not mean that it was not a good trade. many many folks live off that type of income. too bad all you super smartypants bear posters (you know who you are) missed out..
“too bad all you super smartypants bear posters (you know who you are) missed out.”
Yes, missing out on the biggest real estate collapse in U.S. history is something they will regret for the rest of their lives.
You probably actually don’t even think the San Francisco market really “collapsed.” Yet you still wrote that. Who are you playing to?
You probably actually don’t even think the San Francisco market really “collapsed.”
Let’s look at the top of the thread in which you wrote those words. “As of yesterday, however, the listing is active again but with a price that has been reduced to $1,795,000. Once again, purchased ‘off the market’ for $2,500,000 in October of 2008.”
Not a “collapse?” Fine, use whatever term you want to describe it. Crash? Devastating price decline? Extremely large price drop? Correction? Toh-may-toh, toh-mah-toh.
Yep. This condo has seen a steep price reduction in a not so great condo market all right.
Tis’ but a flesh wound!
For the benefit of anyone who did not understand diemos’ reference : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4
Two minutes of Python hilarity. And quite appropriate to the discussion.
Thanks MoD! One of my favorites and a bright spot on a stormy day.
And I shall now forever think of a certain poster as The Black Knight….
“missing out on the biggest real estate collapse in U.S. history”
uhm..sure. thing is all my properties, like perhaps the majority of owners in sf, would sell for much more (2x,3x,10x etc..)than what was paid for them. if that was the biggest collapse in us history, well, i gotta say sf did not do so badly.
i’m not saying prices go up from here; i’m saying there still aren’t any deals out there.
“i’m saying there still aren’t any deals out there.”
Yes!
“would sell for much more (2x,3x,10x etc..)than what was paid for them.”
Yes! Just not as much as if they had sold a couple of years ago.