2006 Washington #4: Living

Once asking as much as $15,000,000 but last listed for $8,500,000, the sale of 2006 Washington Street #4 closed escrow yesterday with a reported contract price of $7,000,000 for the full-floor five-bedroom unit.

Yes, eight million (53 percent) under original asking in the Conrad Alfred Meussdorffer designed “crown jewel” of Pacific Heights (and in which #2 appears to have sold for $7,900,000 in 1999 while #10 would appear to have sold for $14,000,000 in 2000).

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by diemos

    I guess they were just going to give it away.

  2. Posted by Sunny Jim

    Satchel always said that the prices would land back to 1999 levels.

  3. Posted by sparky-b

    Funny, shouldn’t that read “…sells for the pre-1999 price of a total different unit give or take 900K”

  4. Posted by Julie P

    According to the MLS the listing agent (one of the top in all of SF) also represented the seller. Nice commission!

  5. Posted by Skirunman

    @sparky-b: I was going to make the same comment as I thought the title of this post to be somewhat disingenuous. Who knows, maybe unit #2 had solid gold faucets that were melted down to help defray the purchase price. In any case, certainly not an apples-apples.

  6. Posted by resp

    poor Malin. walking away with at least $100K less than the original listing agent was expecting. how tragic for the r.e. industry.
    hey but she got paid $100K for filling our a few forms, and being the one to get the owner to come to grips with what market pricing means.

  7. Posted by Mole Man

    The filling out forms part comes after finding a buyer, which is the tricky part. Just because you don’t like sales people doesn’t mean you can function without them.

  8. Posted by Denis

    After I finally saw the unit, I posted in the “Floor Plan Monty” thread that this would probably sell in the 6s… So I was close. It was in reality in very, very poor condition, so the final sale price isn’t at all surprising. To turn this into a true high-end apartment could easily cost 3 million…

  9. Posted by Anna

    How does a real estate professional miss the mark by 50%?

  10. Posted by anonee

    “How does a real estate professional miss the mark by 50%?”
    perhaps there was some ‘seller assisted pricing’.

  11. Posted by jason

    Exactly right anonee! Because if the agent refuses to list it for the price demanded by the delusional seller, the seller will just find another agent who will. And no agent wants to walk away from a six-figure commission.

    In this case though, there were actual comps (or at least a comp) that supported the original $15M list price, despite how ridiculous that number seems today.

  12. Posted by tipster

    Zippity do dah ♫
    Zippity Ay (half price!)
    My oh my ♪
    What a wonderful day (under 99!)
    Plenty of sunshine
    Comin’ my way &9834;
    Zippity Doo Dah
    Zippity Ay ♫
    In case you were confused by the posts above, this unit closed for $7M. The unit two floors BELOW closed for 7.9 in 1999. This unit already appears to have been finished to very high standards and so it is unlikely that the unit two floors BELOW would have been finished at a level that a buyer would have paid more than 900K additional, especially after accounting for the better view.
    Anyone want to describe how the penthouse at Infinity is a one of a kind again? There are plenty of these high end units all over the city. This one sold for a lower ppsft than the Infinity penthouse, but it was larger, so the usual lower ppsft issues apply. These are pretty comparable.
    The difference is that in years past, the wealthy boomers who owned them didn’t need the money. Now that the economy is slower, and opportunities are less, people need to start selling these high end assets rather than trying to pass them down to generations who don’t want the upkeep. This is going to be true across all price ranges, but especially true at the high end.
    In any event, it seems to be more and more good news around here, each and every day. And that news is only going to get better and better.

  13. Posted by anonee

    it takes a certain kind of person to be a cheerleader. whether the market is going up or down, be it for stocks or houses. some people listen to cheerleaders so who am i to stand in your way, especially b/c you are so ‘plugged in’.

  14. Posted by rodeoactive

    While the units in this building are, for the most part, full floor apartments, #2 actually has an interior open staircase that leads down to about one-third of the floor below. The views are still great from #2, too.
    #4 is not in particularly good shape, and I agree with Denis that the new owners will likely drop a few million into getting the place up to par with the other units there.

  15. Posted by [anon.ed]

    “Zippity do dah ♫
    Zippity Ay (half price!)
    My oh my ♪
    What a wonderful day (under 99!)”
    We’re talking a very dated 5400 feet versus an at the time newer 7400 feet and Tipster gets the tether to act like this. Why is that?
    [Editor’s Note: See rodeoactive’s comment above with respect to making a point while adding value versus whining about someone else.]

  16. Posted by sfrenegade

    You know, this one was listed for $15M and sold for $7M. I think tipster gets a little latitude here even if we’re not comparing apples-to-apples.

  17. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Really? How does the outcome, which is an original pricepoint the building itself never even supported ultimately yeilding to the market’s value, illustrate something that can be taken away, other than one person held on to an incorrect notion for a period of time?

  18. Posted by eddy

    So when the outter broadway home listed at 65 sells at 30 I suppose we can then say that Prime PH is 50% off.

  19. Posted by tipster

    Very dated? Sorry, at this price point whatever was in there gets ripped out and redone anyway unless it is very, very recent. As long as there aren’t any structural problems, a 1980s home is worth the same as an early 2000 remodel: both get ripped out and redone. No difference in price: both will be customized for the exact taste of the buyer. No one blows that kind of cash to get the former owner’s taste in 2002 flooring and fixtures.
    My decorator wants me to get something old: she doesn’t want me to think twice about starting over and I have the cash to do it. If I buy something redone in 2002, she’s going to want it out anyway and I’m going to do it. I’m not going to pay one cent more for a place from 2002 than I would for a place from 1980.
    At $5M and under, very dated and somewhat dated is a big difference, and it gets more so the further down you go. $7M and over, unless it was redone in the last few years, no difference. At all.

  20. Posted by sfrenegade

    It would certainly be 50% off people’s expectations. No doubt expectations are important and perceptions matter. Emotions matter in the housing market, and anyone seeing a drop from listing price like that sees what’s going on and reacts to it, whether as a buyer or seller, especially when they’re a casual buyer or seller and not someone familiar with the market, as most buyers and sellers are.
    But come on, it’s tipster. Like I said, he gets latitude on a $15M to $7M drop. Given that we’re talking 1999 and 2000 prices, a justifiable price could easily have been $10M instead of $15M, and tipster would have had plenty of reason to celebrate for that too.

  21. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Tipster, the guy who you and your pals and the editor use as a jumpoff point. Stake a claim waaaaaay over to the wrong side of every equation and then begin arguing with the person who challenges him, from there. Concede some ground along the way. What, you’re four degrees more reasonable than Tipster? Bully for you but that’s still saying nothing.
    Also, renegade, you’d get a lot more credibility if you challenged the people saying “Noe is down 30% across the board,” the same way you challenge bulls who bring up apropos of little high sales prices. But obviously you don’t wish to do that. Neither does the editor. He points to D10 as evidence.

  22. Posted by sfrenegade

    fluj, you’re full of it here and making up strawmen again (as far as I know, no one has said “Noe is down 30% across the board”). No surprise. All I said was that tipster has a right to gloat. You are trying to draw broader conclusions from simple statements without really making a substantive point (just like you did when I said a listing price was down 30% from the prior sale in the other thread). You used to make some substantive posts among your flames, but now you don’t.

  23. Posted by tipster

    It doesn’t really matter. What matters is that the sellers are in the throwing in the towel phase.
    Here’s another great example: 60 Brette Har Terrace, with a bay view, purchased for $630K in 1999, and then probably remodeled and sold for $1.1 in 2006. The current owners listed it for just under 1.3 earlier this summer. Yeah right. Then they dropped it to 1.2 and then what they paid for it.
    They finally appear to have gotten the message that it isn’t 2006 any longer and so they dropped the price to 895K, a $200K loss. The 699K paid in 1999 adjusted for inflation is about 810K. They are practically at the 1999 price, adjusted for inflation.
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/60-Bret-Harte-Ter-94133/home/1382508

  24. Posted by tipster

    On more careful inspection, it looks like the agent is convinced, but the seller still needs more of an education. T
    he listing says seller may counter or reject offers. So it sounds like the listing agent listed it at a price below what the owner is willing to accept to allow the owner to see what any offers are going to look like to allow the seller to reset his or her expectations. The education process continues.

  25. Posted by Skirunman

    This discussion is fun to watch. I put my vote in for tipster as #1 in hyperbole followed by anon.ed in a distant second.
    Getting back to substance, does anyone know for how much #4 last sold for and when? I’m too lazy to go look it up. Assuming numbers are correct above, #2 sold for $1,068/sq. ft. in ’99 and #4 for $1,296 or 21% above ’99 price. Seems about right considering finishes in #4. These type of properties are such one-offs that I don’t think you can make broad strokes about the state of the market based on their results. In addition, I will reiterate that I believe that list price, just like DOM, are silly stats and only of passing interest. They could have listed it for 1 Trillion Quatloos for all that really matters.

  26. Posted by sfrenegade

    “Getting back to substance, does anyone know for how much #4 last sold for and when?”
    Not entirely sure. The Prop 13-adjusted tax value for 2008-2009 was only $322K or so.
    I’m not completely clear why, but it looks like the 2009-2010 tax amount is based on $10.2M. Where would that number come from?

  27. Posted by rodeoactive

    I believe #4 sold in 2008 and that those owners never actually occupied the unit. Don’t know what it went for then, but I would guess that this is where the $10.2M number comes from.

  28. Posted by sfrenegade

    If it sold in 2008, $10.2M is $10M + 2%. This was a 2009-2010 valuation, so a valuation of $10.2M in 2009 would be consistent with a $10M sale in 2008 per prop 13.
    Maybe we’ve solved our mystery. If so, this place is down 30% from its own sale in 2008. There are no recent permits on #4, so it could be an apple too.

  29. Posted by tipster

    Maybe we’ve solved our mystery. If so, this place is down 30% from its own sale in 2008. There are no recent permits on #4, so it could be an apple too.
    Zippity do dah ♫
    Zippity Ay
    My oh my ♪
    What a wonderful day

  30. Posted by [anon.ed]

    ^^^^ LOL ^^^^^
    Non arms length transactions are only to get worked up about if you don’t like the outcome, eh?
    Otherwise they make you burst into song.
    Two Zippity do dah’s in one thread. Think a bull could pull that off on this website?
    Starting to think Tipster = Ed.
    Think about it. LOL.

  31. Posted by two of five

    Arms length transactions are irrelevant.
    Singing is irrelevant.
    Zippity do dah’s are irrelevant.
    Your architectural distinctiveness will be added to our own.
    Resistance is futile.

  32. Posted by Denis

    What I find hysterical is that their tax base on this unit in conjunction with the laughable $4900 month HOAs is about 135k annually, about the same as the property taxes on a $12.5 million SFR.

  33. Posted by diemos

    HOAs in these types of buildings are often yearly, not monthly.

  34. Posted by tipster

    1. From Reddfin:
    “Dues: $4,907.85
    Dues Paid: Monthly ”
    2. “Starting to think Tipster = Ed.”
    Hmmm, come to think about it, none of us HAVE ever seen them in the same room together.

  35. Posted by sfrenegade

    Why would you think of a non-MLS sale as a non-arms-length sale? If so, those high-priced Malin/Nina listings that are on MLS for a day or two after the sale has been pre-arranged are not arms-length sales. It seems like one thing if the price is unnecessarily low and might not be a justifiable market price, but for high-priced sales like this one, which is justifiable given the prior prices in this building, why would you say non-arms-length?

  36. Posted by [anon.ed]

    You’re welcome to share any trace of the transaction if you can find one. I couldn’t find anything, and that’s what made me think it wasn’t arm’s length. That, and the unsupported price it must have been, working backward from the property tax. I could be wrong. Doubt it. Malin and Nina have last names too. They’re not Bono of Flea. Or even Mariah.

  37. Posted by eddy

    In SF the Malin/Nina’s are more influential than Bono / Flea. Besides, Havatney and Giddings? FYI: Anyone have any scoop on Malin’s 260 Green St listing at $13m?

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles