As a plugged-in reader notes, the apples to apples sale of 110 Elsie closed escrow this past Friday with a reported contract price of $1,310,000 ($595 per square foot). As another reader noted three weeks ago: “They apparently received 5 offers following the first open house, all over asking, and at least one all-cash.”
Purchased for $1,250,000 in 2004, call it average annual appreciation of 0.8% (but likely a bit more up and then down) over the past six years for this fully remodeled Bernal Heights home.
∙ Apples To Apples For A “Sexy & Sophisticated” Six Year Bernal Hold [SocketSite]
This sale doesn’t provide any support for either bears or bulls. I’d call this a neutral outcome.
Although it did close really quickly…
Anonn: Thoughts?
Depends on how you see neutral. $1.25M in 2004 adjusted for inflation to 2010 (now that new data is out) is $1.43M. This fits in line with some people’s belief of flat nominal prices and dropping real prices.
Bernal hasn’t seen many 1.3M+ sales in its history. Only 41, and only 13 over 1.4M for that matter. A lot of the bears on here called for Bernal to absolutely tank. Some of them even went as far as to say that it had already occurred. Clearly neither has proven to be the case so far. It’s relatively central, it never got bid up THAT high, and it’s high ground. I think such neighborhoods tend to retain their value pretty well in most cities. Look at how Silverlake has fared in LA. Not bad either.
personally, it seems more bullish than not. $600/ft² for Bernal realtive to the comps is a very good price, and as anonn notes, at the higher price point for Bernal in absolute terms as well. and as you note it closed quickly.
Meanwhile, things are not going as well for the not-quite-north-slope vanguard. The home at 510 Franconia was bought for $1.010 million in 2006 and is currently for sale for $975k. Financing by World Saving Bank, what could go wrong?
EB; next two the 101, with a facade/design that looks interesting to be generous…no wonder that bad boy struggles to find love at that price. ouch.
With the Franconia property, a challenging location and so far only 35K off a 2006 price isn’t much of a slide. But it hasn’t sold yet.
Speaking of over $1.4 million in Bernal, did anyone see 106 Coleridge over the weekend? Not my taste, but they really developed (overdeveloped) every bit of space (then filled it). I think I counted 5 levels top to bottom, not including the yard.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/106-Coleridge-St-94110/home/1743208
I looked at it but decided not to bid, and I’m not surprised it went so quickly. Very spacious, great views, quiet street. If you’re 30ish and starting a family but want to live in the city, it’s a great place.
My interpretation: desirable homes will go quickly no matter what the market is doing.
@anonn it never got bid up THAT high
I recall a few stories of recently minted Google millionaires bidding against each other on Bernal homes. But relative to Noe, which kept spiking, you’re probably right.
Does that mean it was remodeled sometime over the last six years? If so, how does that factor into the price analysis? Regardless of whether or not this place was remodeled in the last six years, I have always wondered how to look at price data in an area ex-ing out the dollars spent on improvements.
I recall a few stories of recently minted Google millionaires bidding against each other on Bernal homes. But relative to Noe, which kept spiking, you’re probably right.
If you consider that it’s still routinely possible to find something in the mid 8’s in Bernal, then that’s where I’m really coming from. Plus there’s only been one 2M sale ever. Noe went to routine 2M sales in 2004 and it will never come back.
Can I get an official ruling on whether this is a North Slope Bernal property? Very close, but the views may require a periscope? At any rate, I’m willing to bet the NOD at 3219 Folsom goes the distance. Originally bought in 2004 for $799k with 90% financing and a subsequent refi/home ATM with IndyMac in 2006, this property received a NOD (on what looks like the original first) on Feb. 4.
Directly above Precita Park counts as North Slope, for sure. But goes the distance? This is a perfect example of why NODs aren’t inventory. That house sells for up to 950K easily right now if it’s on the market. That lot is great for the area. Looks like they put 10 percent down. Paid themselves back. Took another 50K. Then another 50K.
Oh come on now, anonn, do you really want me to post a link to lawsuit regarding the owner’s $10k+ Discover card debt?
I’d call it west slope. That’s the part of the hill it’s actually on. But I just used to live there; I’m not in the business.
EBGuy, what’s your point? It seems like you’re trying to say people in financial difficulty don’t sell their houses. The various re-fi’s read like there’s still enough equity to make everybody whole. Of course I don’t want you to air anybody’s dirty laundry. Especially when it doesn’t have anything to do withe the price of fish.
“Of course I don’t want you to air anybody’s dirty laundry.”
Anonn: I generally agree with a person’s right to privacy. However, what if that person has knowingly been irresponsible and the public at large are paying for the consequences of their actions?
It’s often difficult to ascertain a particular situation without talking to the individuals involved but multiple cash out refinancing is a definite red flag. It is certainly a fine line between taking pleasure in someone’s misfortune versus exposing some truly careless behavior.
Yeah it’s a red flag and the credit card reinforces that, but look at the property. It trumps everything. Anybody halfway conversant with Bernal values right now would think it has enough equity to avoid “going the distance” if sold.
Thanks Anonn. I was not commenting on the property specifically but more on the practice of some posters bringing to light the financial history behind some of these homes. (Which often is publicly available.) It can be valid in some cases but in others these are real people who are under some serious personal distress because of their financial situation. It’s difficult to figure out when it is or is not appropriate.
EB, I too would be suprised to see Folsom go through foreclosure. PS shows $800k in the first and second, both held by the same lender. the house should sell for $850 easy.
The credit card debt is irrelevant. there would appear to be equity sufficient to sell the house, pay the brokers & mortgage and have a little left towards the credit card. Unless the owner has trashed the place and is irrational, they should be interviewing brokers right now and avoid the foreclosure.
EB, I too would be suprised to see Folsom go through foreclosure. PS shows $800k in the first and second, both held by the same lender.
Geo, I disagree (do you have a paid subscription?). Here’s what I see on 3219 Folsom:
1/16/2004: $639,000 first, $79,000 second (90% financing via Alliance Bancorp, source: PropertyShark).
Subsequent refinancing or seconds from SF Recorder’s website, amounts unknown:
01/20/2005: Deeds of Trust with JPM and Wells Fargo
12/30/2005: Deed of Trust with Citgroup
07/25/2006: Deed of Trust with IndyMac
NOD on Feb.4, 2010: Wells Fargo
anonn said: Paid themselves back. Took another 50K. Then another 50K.
Are these actual values from records you have access to?
EB: are they subsequent refis or a transfer of the loan?
Do you even know how to begin to value this property, first of all? I think you do not. Secondly, the re-fis were credit lines. Necessarily each displaced the credit line in front of it. If you can’t see what the loans are termed you should not be talking about eventualities you can’t predict.
anonn, If you really believe in this property, slip a CMA under the guy’s door. I will forgive my usual referral fee. As a taxpayer (and bank shareholder), I would be delighted if no loan forgiveness results from the sale of 3219 Folsom.
BTW – I think you should march over to the seller at 116 Manchester and demand a commission. I certainly recognize the strength of the North Slope, but southeast Bernal appears to be a disaster zone. Will be interesting to see if it spreads up (and over?) the hill.
Hmmmm… here’s a North Slope property scheduled to hit the auction block on March 4. Interesting, though, that there is a a recorded typo in the name on the Deed of Trust for 109 Franconia (wonder if you can use this to delay the inevitable). At any rate, appears to be a $1million+ mortgage courtesy of (yes, that’s right) WaMu. Bought for $1.25 million in 2002.
Yeah, OK. That one looks like it might could go. Looks like they pulled out every penny of 1.3M and there isn’t very much time left. (It could probably go for more on the open market if it did have the time. That’s a lot of house, big views, and it was bought in 2002.) That said, like with a lot of these, who knows what’s going on behind the scenes.
What do you think about the other places (further down) on (a disjoint part of) Franconia on the east slope? 505 Franconia and 510 Franconia. 505 doesn’t hide the fact that it overlooks the freeway.
The owner of 510 has been trying to sell since March ’09 after a 3 year hold. Bought at $1.01M in March 2006, and now at $975K after at least one cut, probably more. Tax value is 900K for 2009, which they must have gotten reassessed.
505 was bought for $760K in Nov 2004, listed at $799K.