While the 535 square foot studio in Lower Pacific Heights known as 1905 Laguna #207 is currently in contract, last asking $375,000 having been purchased for $405,000 in April 2008, the 477 square foot one-bedroom known as 1905 Laguna #304 has just been relisted as a short sale asking $280,000.
Purchased for $415,000 in April 2005, the listing for 1905 Laguna #304 would suggest it’s a below market rate (BMR) unit which was purchased by a first-time homebuyer buying into NARs the American dream. Returned to the market asking $370,000 this past August, the list price was reduced to $299,000 in September before being relisted yesterday.
∙ Listing: 1905 Laguna #207 (0/1) 535 sqft – $375,000 [MLS]
∙ Listing: 1905 Laguna #304 (1/1) 477 sqft – $280,000 [MLS]
Best Socketsite post title ever. You should brand and sell Socketsite dream-sticks.
#304 has 2 car deeded parking with what looks like a private entrance. #207 has no parking.
I think you got that backwards eddy. #207 is the unit with 2 parking spots. And that sounds odd that a studio in a 20 unit building has 2 spots. If true, there’s significant value there in parking alone.
so, 700/sq vs. 500/sq…
Just pulled some data that I found interesting. 12 month moving average median price in SF for bank owned sales is about $475k and for non-bank owned is about $775k for all property types. Some of this $300k difference is certainly because bank owned properties are likely lesser quality properties, but it would be interesting to try to figure out how much should be allocated to poor marketing and desire to sell quickly on the banks part. Obviously, no way to figure this out, but I do find it quite interesting.
That must be a first: The two parking spaces that come with the studio probably represent more square feet than the unit itself.
wow, you could probably rent out the parking and cut down your housing costs substantially.
This would be good as a Pied-à-terre
where the parking helps subsidize the ownership cost -or as a time share in some form
Rent out one of the parkng spaces to pay for the HOA dues which are a bit much for such a tiny place.
Definitely agree with the first commenter – best title EVER. And I say that as a resident of a very crappy apartment in glorious Pac Heights, so i get it completely. Please re-use that title occasionally, or make it a feature, or something.
#304 reduced to $265K.
To think that $415K was “below market” in 2005 shows you how far that market has dropped!
for once i agree with tipster; the market for this kind of sub-par product in this kind of sub-par location has fallen big time. it needed to.
Reduced to $255K. Down 39%. Bummer for owners everywhere.
“Bummer for owners everywhere.”
compare a little tic in marginal sf to the national average house price. seems to me that sfre owners still have much to be thankful for.
“seems to me that sfre owners still have much to be thankful for.”
I agree with that, at least for owners who bought a long time ago.
Those who bought in the last 6 or 7 years are screwed about as badly as anyone, anywhere. I guess they can be thankful that they got to “own” in SF while they suffered that massive real estate loss – “only” 39% in this case.
hey a.t., sorry if i touched a nerve there. i agree with you that some people have taken a severe beating. getting caught up in a speculative fervor and such. i also know misery loves company. perhaps some of those who were burned now want to paint the whole experience as a sucker’s game.
stories highlighting big losses satisfy those who also lost or who missed out long ago when they had the chance to buy cheap, whereas stories about big profits end up inciting envy and bitterness. schadenfreude soup is feel good food.
anonee, you may have touched a nerve with those who bought in the last 6-7 years, but that does not include me. We bought almost 11 years ago and suspect we’re still in the black. I don’t really care as I bought at lower than comparable rent and have saved mucho unless prices fall by about 40% more. Even then, I’ve said I’m looking to buy a bigger place and would be perfectly happy to lose more on my current place as that means I’m saving more on the move-up.
But I think you’ve got it wrong about your schadenfreude theory, at least on SS. My sense is that those who are highlighting the big losses of recent buyers are the ones who warned about exactly this scenario a few years ago and were roundly, nearly-universally ridiculed for it. Heck, some continue to deny here that there has been a substantial market decline at all, so these examples are just going to prove what is obvious to all but the most disingenuous. May be some I-told-you-so in there, but it is not a case of misery loves company.
“Those who bought in the last 6 or 7 years are screwed about as badly as anyone”
I certainly don’t feel screwed. I feel great about my house. Super profitable, nope. But it’s affordable (OptionARM yay!), it’s comfortable, I’m not worried the landlord wants to move in, and my kids love the house. I think there are lots of people in my boat.
I’m good, love my place, and in the black. Of course, I’m not an “apple”.
I don’t like when AT and Tipster et al make these grand made up proclamations like everyone who bought in the last 7 years is screwed badly and Cole Valley is down 40% and other such nonsense.
It ain’t black and white. Some people are screwed. Some places in Cole Valley are down 40%. But certainly not anywhere near all.
Heck AT, Tipster keeps saying we’re back to 99 prices, which would put your place back at the price you bought it, or maybe lower. I guess you can’t move up.
R, I may be back to 1999 prices on our place. Doubt it, but it’s possible.
But that won’t impede my moving up but will support it! Like I said, it doesn’t matter that much to me as the move-up savings will just be that much greater. Plenty of cash available. We may rent out our place after we move if that makes sense, or we may sell if buyers are still willing to pay far more than rental value at that time.
And you are right that everyone who bought in SF in the last 7 years has not taken a substantial financial hit. I’m sure there are rare exceptions. I keep asking people to find one and post it.
People post even and small hit apples all the time. Even this site does. Repeating that you keep asking for them is irrelevant.
That’s going to be harder and harder to do, AT.
Look at what’s contingent out there now since interest rates rose (“paid” is the price the seller paid, last list is the last price before it went contingent). Some of it is downright scary:
Paid….Last List Price…Address
———————————
$839K….$443K…2443-2445 47th
$512K….$335K…260 King #362
$755K….$451K…3928 Alemany Blvd
1350K….$735K…277 32nd Ave
$565K….$293K…601 Van Ness #421
$699K….$499K…2514 23rd Ave (price paid was in 2002!)
$720K….$450K…56 Gladstone
$529K….$329K…950 Duncan St Unit 302e
Bloodbath this winter. Complete bloodbath. These all went contingent in the last 30 days, after interest rates spiked up.
You missed 465 Hoffman.
Paid Last List
$2.97M $2.995
Oh also can I borrow your cherry picker?
[Editor’s Note: The Number Of The 465 Hoffman And An Eight Month Noe Apple To Be.]
The pending sale of 1905 Laguna #207 has since fallen out of contract and its list price reduced to $356,250.
The listing for 1905 Laguna #207 has been withdrawn from the market without a reported sale. Once again, purchased for $405,000 in April 2008 and last asking $356,250 before being withdrawn.
Sold for 47% off, from my post above, 601 Van Ness #421
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/601-Van-Ness-Ave-94102/unit-421/home/1127304
Ha, so that’s the 50% decline that all you haters predicted?
A 1-BR civic center condo selling for more than the median home price elsewhere. I’d say the SF housing market is showing surprising strength.
“Good places” that are “priced right” are still “selling quickly.” This place went pending only 12 days after the last price adjustment and went for “over asking”! I sense a lot of pent up demand out there.
Ha ha, and this 47% off sale was one of the “high February pendings” that also was supposed to show market strength!
47.
Splat.