Okay, so more accurately, ‘twas the night before the night before Christmas and an apple was picked. Purchased for $1,495,000 in October 2007 and “never occupied as a primary residence,” the sale of 1 South Park #402 closed escrow yesterday with a reported contract price of $1,165,000, an apples-to-apples decline in value of 22 percent ($330,000) over the past three years.
And while we didn’t feature it before, and it’s not actually an apple (think new structural beams and the elimination of columns for the enlargement of the garage), a tipster’s noted sale of 19 Delmar does fit our “night before the night” theme.
With a reported sale at $1,660,000, one could call it a 17 percent drop in value ($280,000) for the single-family Haight Ashbury “elegant Stick-Victorian” home since its purchase for $1,940,000 in March 2008, of course that wouldn’t account for the value of those improvements which were estimated to cost (versus be worth) an estimated $55,000 for the purposes of permitting.
A safe and merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.
∙ One South Park Starts Sprouting Apples (1 South Park #402) [SocketSite]
$20,000 per month for three years to own, but not actually live in, a part of a converted warehouse?
Geez. All that money. Burned like embers. You could even say it glows.
thank you so much for sharing this. now i know the true worth. without this blog, i’d be lost, with this blog, i know the actual value of homes in san francisco. i’m so grateful this holiday season for all of this wonderful info. i’ll be sure to offer 33% less on another unit that goes active in this building. what would i do without this blog? without it, i’d think the real estate market in SF was on fire and that everything was selling for over asking. i’m so grateful for this insight this holiday season. thank you for being the real estate police socketsite. thank you for acting like the best know-it-all in all the land, thank you.
x, these are specially selected apples that just illustrate short hold, sucky buildings, poor location, busy streets, lack of “actively” adding value, interchangeable luxury condos etc… the “real estate professionals” and “in the trenches” folks know that’s not how things really work.
but yeah, i second the thanks to ss 🙂
The sad part is that if they had only rented, they could have rented a 3/3 on the top floor of the St Regis facing the bay.
For about half what they spent.
But hey, who can blame them. In 2007, they would have been “throwing away their money on rent” “making their landlord rich”.
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/2129109679.html
And I’m sure the 2008 buyers of the place on Delmar are grateful for the realtor advice that “if you buy a good house in a good neighborhood you should do all right.” $400,000 down the toilet in 2 1/2 years is the opposite of “doing all right.” x, you and your realtor co-workers still giving out advice like that?
blame it on the realtors so you do not have to take personal responsibility. while you are at it blame your crappy rental on your landlord’s vacationing habits.
too bad for these fellows on delmar. the house is nicely done and in a good location. oh well i guess anyone who said that real estate only goes up was lying so its better to ask them to give these guys their money back!
@x Try taking some nice pills for a change … ss helps those less cynical to keep in touch with what’s going on in various parts of the city. Have a good new year, if possible.