48 Chenery
From July 2006 to July 2010 the median sale price for listed District 5 single-family homes has increased over 30 percent! And according to Redfin, in July the median sale price in Glen Park was up over 50 percent year-over-year! Yes, on five sales.
Purchased for $1,235,000 in May 2006, the single-family Glen Park home at 48 Chenery is back on the market and asking $1,250,000. A sale at asking would represent total effective appreciation of 1 percent since 2006 on an apples-to-apples basis.
∙ Listing: 48 Chenery (2/2) 1,847 sqft – $1,250,000 [MLS]
Medians Are Up, But Don’t Confuse That With Increasing “Prices” [SocketSite]

21 thoughts on “Apples To Apples (Versus Median To Median) In Glen Park”
  1. Odd that they didn’t convert that home office back to a legal bedroom. This would probably market better as a 3/2, given the price range.

  2. Great location although Chenery is not my favorite street in Glen Park. Given that this is closer to 30th Street than Glen Park Village I suspect this place will attract prospective Noe buyers. Can’t see it selling at list. I suspect they are going to take a 100-150K haircut.

  3. A two bedroom in Glenn Park for $1.25 million? I looked at this in 2006 – they didn’t bother to legalize the back bedroom, but I respect the estate agent for not fraudulently claiming it to be otherwise.
    My guess is a haircut more in the 200K range.

  4. If they get an offer for anything over a million, they should take it before the big one gets away. There are quite nice homes in much more desirable areas for less than this. The current asking is a silly bubble price. A real estimate? $1,070,000. These things take years.

  5. Up and coming neighborhood. For instance, 162 Randall should be coming the the courthouse steps soon (NOD filed on May 25). Refied for a $1 million in 2007.

  6. Wow, and the owner of 162 Randall paid a cool $172K in 1998. That’s some serious equity withdrawal. It says multi-family unit? It went from a 2/1 to at least a 4/2, but it’s unclear what’s warranted and what’s not.
    For comparison, 48 Chenery sold for $376K in 1991 and $390K in 1993. It’s actually impressive that a previous buyer made a slight profit (not including transaction fees) during that time. That was back when it was a 2/1 with 1250 sqft.
    We are definitely still seeing wishing prices, this listing included.
    When they say “Marina-style,” does anyone else hear “soft-story”?

  7. I do know that in the much less desirable neighborhood above Glen Park (Miraloma Park) a handful of homes have sold for a million plus in recent years. Actually more since the collapse than before. But still not many
    However, in all cases, they were 4/3’s’ or 3/2’s’ that were detached and great views.
    Hard to see this getting more than it sold for in 2006. Especially given the size.

  8. Wow, and the owner of 162 Randall paid a cool $172K in 1998.
    From what I can tell from the public record (PS & SF recorders website) the owner has been involved with that property even before 1998. Appears to be a senior so money could have been taken out for a myriad of reasons…

  9. EBGuy — good point, it looks like a non-arms-length transaction from the recorders office info. Looks like one of the owners also had a lien by the Public Health dept and the Water dept at various points before 1998.

  10. 254 30th sold for $1,212,500 in September of 2008 in the middle of the melt down and it is smaller and on 30th Street, with the J-Church rumbling by. This place goes for a bit off asking, say $1.18M.
    I live quite close to here and my place appraised for $5,000 less than it appraised for in 2008. I am in the middle of re-fi’ing it. Go 4 3/8% on a 20 year with no points, I am pretty happy with it.
    The neighborhood continues to gentrify and this house is literally steps from both the Google and Apple shuttle stops.

  11. Other good comps nearby:
    118 Valley 2/2 $1.155 10/2009
    1617 Church 2/1 $1.025 9/2008
    118 Day 3/2 $1.225 10/2008
    260 Day 3/1.25 (but 1360 sq ft) $950k 7/2009
    228 30th 3/1 (1400 sq ft) $960k 10/2009
    239 Chenery 2/1 (1235 sq ft) $900k 6/2010
    The last is the best and sold for $729/sq ft. This place is asking $676, very doable.

  12. great info NVJ.
    The place shows well in pictures, and many people like me won’t mind that it’s a 2/2 so long as the office could double as a guest bedroom.
    this is one of those times where I’m very proud of the listing agent for being truthful (listing as 2/2 instead of 3/2) but at the same time this house in many ways is more of a 3/2 than other “real” 3/2’s.
    people like me won’t care, since we’ll use the 3rd bedroom as an office anyway. For instance, I live in a house that’s a 3/2, but we use one bedroom as an office! how many DINKs are like me who live in SF?
    to me the “knocks” on this place are
    1) too close to highway for me
    2) too far south.
    3) not sure what’s happening with that kitchen. I like the kitchen itself, but what is just adjacent to it?
    but that just shows the gentrification that’s happened in SF.

  13. This is further north than I had thought. Only a realtor map would call this Glen Park. Given that, I think my guess is a bit low — I’m revising it up 50k to 1.120M. Enough people consider this “Noe” that it will fetch a bit more that I had thought. Still a crazy price given the places offered in much better and more convenient areas.

  14. “…too close to highway for me”
    Exactly which highway are you talking about ex-SF-er? There are no highways close enough to that location to cause any noise or congestion.
    “…too far south”
    BART is a 10 minute ride to downtown. J Church to 24th Street is 5 mins. Walkable to Cortland. Really a perfect location for people who work in the Peninsula but want to live in the city.

  15. It is funny, this is the size place I want in the neighborhood I want at about the price I want, but I don’t want it on busy Chenery.
    Rent vs. Buy shows that is a bad deal, though:
    Say you put $250,000 down since only the first $1M is deductible and borrow at 5%, you get:
    PI: $5300/mo
    T: $1200/mo
    I: $200/mo
    ———
    $6700/mo
    Add in a modest $800 sinking fund for maintenance and you end up with $7500/mo. Subtract from that a mortgage interest deduction of $1600 and the $1200 each month you are putting toward principal and you are out of pocket $4700/mo.
    Considering this rents for $3000 or at most $3200/mo, you are losing $1500/mo. Throw in the 4% interest you could be making on your down payment and you are out $28k/yr. So this place would have to appreciate at 2.2%/yr to be a wash. Normally, this is easy to get, as the long term (post – WWII) appreciation rate for SF and California properties has been 5-6%, but I don’t think you can count on that for any of the near future.
    I know of an interesting comp that is a pocket listing on 33 Day street. It is kind of an awkward 3/1.5 about 1650 sq feet and is listed for $1.085M. I looked at it last weekend, but it is too close to San Jose for my comfort. But it is officially in Noe Valley, which this place is not. I didn’t think much of the remodeling job they did either, if I bought it I would have to have it redone before I moved in.

  16. This place is really nice. The center patio brings great light to the unit and the downstairs open floor plan is awesome! Most people would want the third bedroom back, but I love the office/media room setup. I imagine a wall can be easily put back up to create a third bedroom. The backyard is really nice…lots of space.

  17. I just went and looked at this place, it is indeed very nice. The open downstairs would be nice as a combo office/family room. I am going to stick with my original guess.

  18. Contingent now someone made an offer after two open houses. I think I know at least one couple who made an offer, I bumped into them at the open house and they were busy quizzing me about what I thought it was worth.

  19. agentsf: Given 3 offers and how quickly this looks like it’s going to sell, would it be safe to assume this went for close to asking?

Leave a Reply

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