After 33 days on the market, and just five days after reducing its list price from $799,000 to $749,000, the MLS listing for 848 Potrero has been withdrawn from the market without a reported sale.
Once again, the Inner Mission property was purchased for $920,000 in April 2008 having sold for $849,000 in November 2005.
∙ Inner Mission Apples-To-Apples-To-Apples To Be At 848 Potrero [SocketSite]
when the tide goes out its locations like this that are left high and buy(erless)…
Ah, the bottom fishers of the early crash years. God bless em…
780 Potrero has a for sale sign on it. I imagine it will be listed in the same price range as 848 Potrero. I know I would choose 780 over 848.
anonee, it’s not just locations like this. Prices are off even in the best locations, and if the seller doesn’t come down to the market price, the place will never sell anywhere.
Here is an SFR with a bay view from the master bedroom in the BEST part of Cow Hollow, also trying to get around 10% under its 2005 price, with no luck.
Prices just continue to sink, and while the decline started ealier in the less desirable locations, it’s happening all over and, although it’s just starting, and has a long, long way to go, will ultimately hit everything very hard.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/2552-Baker-St-94123/home/1920508
You aren’t going to get a much better location than this one.
It is like the scene in Alien when the face hugger bleeds and its fluids go splat, then hiss, then dribble down and splat and hiss again, and again. From 920 to 749 is nearly 20% off and still not enough. splat, hiss
I thought the inner mission was a bright spot and not a “locations like this that are left high and buy(erless)” area.
Of course all areas have been hit. Nice areas are still more expensive than less nice areas, but all have fallen. The “not in Real SF” notion became a gag cliche a long time ago.
This is the ‘Inner Mission’ on realtor maps only. And I don’t think anybody’s saying ‘Real SF’. What they are saying is Potrero is a very busy street with lots of buses and trucks.
If this house was a block away (i.e. not on Potrero) I’m sure it would have sold.
It was in the same location in 2005 and 2008. It very well may be the case that it would have sold by now if it were a block away, but it would also then have fetched a higher price in 2005 and 2008.
The flip side of anonee’s argument is that what’s selling today is on relatively high ground. Anonee is just pointing out what Satchel called “beauty pageant effect”. Watch out for the price drops that would be needed to move the property that flew out the door in 2006.
“It was in the same location in 2005 and 2008.”
No doubt. I think this whole argument has been gone through time and time again.
In the boom, great houses got crazy money, good houses got great money, and crappy houses got good money.
Nowadays, great houses get great money, good houses get good money, and crappy houses get crappy money.
This happens to be a crappy house (not really, nice house, but crappy location) and trying to get good money. And that don’t fly no more.
R, we’re essentially in agreement on the breadth of things. I would just characterize it this way:
In the boom, great houses got truly ridiculous money, good houses got crazy money, and crappy houses got great money.
Nowadays, great houses get crazy money, good houses get great money, and crappy houses get good money.
Within a couple more years, great houses will get great money, good houses will get good money, and crappy houses will get crappy money.
I like that people have started using similar phrasing to what I’ve used on SS before when people say something along the lines of “good houses still get good prices.”
We call it many things – I call it the flight to quality. Why buy crap when next week you might be able to buy something decent? With prices stable and declining, why rush into crap? You rush into crap when you think (or don’t think) “I might be priced out forever”. You buy crap with this mentality and you can be priced in forever…
Ridonculous! This location is nowhere near as bad as some of you are making it out to be. Potrero is only busy during morning and evening commute, most times the traffic is pretty light. I know, I lived on Potrero Ave. for years.
No, the real problem is that it is a 1/1 house, when 1/1 should be a condo. If this house is a 3/2, 1400 sq ft SFH instead of a 1/1 with inlaw then it would have been sold by now.
“If this house was a block away (i.e. not on Potrero) I’m sure it would have sold.”
indeed, it IS micro, bros.
“This location is nowhere near as bad as some of you are making it out to be.”
ok sam, so how would you rate the beauty of the potrero streetscape on a scale of 1 to 10?
Potrero is no beauty though there are many worse streets in the city. Which takes me to the question “Which SF street is the bleakest ?” Mid-Market comes immediately to mind. But you can’t argue that the scummy section of Market isn’t “lively” and lively places can’t be bleak.
Much of SOMA was pretty bleak, but that has changed. I can’t think of many really bleak streets aside from places like the stretch of Cesar Chavez/Army as it passes beneath 101.
Does anyone have any good candidates for the Khrushchev Award ?
anonee, Potrero Ave is no more or less beautiful than its neighboring streets to the west – basically filled with houses like the one in this thread, just like other streets in the Mission. The only difference is that Potrero Ave is wider and has the hospital and the Potrero Center, both of which are not bad architecturally. I give it a 7 out of 10; it’s not the most beautiful streets in town (but you’re not going to find 1,400 sq ft house selling for mid $700s on the most beautiful streets in the city) but it’s by no means a scene out of Escape from New York.
UPDATE: While the listing for 848 Potrero was withdrawn, yesterday the listing was reactivated and instantly changed to “in escrow.” We’ll keep you posted.