75 Lansing #1

Purchased for $620,000 in September 2006 but “lavishly remodeled” with Venetian plaster, Italian tile, and exotic woods, and with a floor plan “inspired by a Feng Shui Master,” 75 Lansing #1 returned to the market at the end of 2010 asking $1,098,000.

Reduced to $978,000 and then withdrawn from the MLS three days ago, yesterday the two-bedroom condo was listed anew for $899,000 with an official “one” day on the market per MLS based stats and reports.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by diemos

    Not really my definition of “heart of south beach”, more like “off ramp adjacent” but pretty.

  2. Posted by Paul Hwang

    It’s actually the on ramp.

  3. Posted by SJnative

    I don’t get the ‘days on market’ gripe by many. As a South Bay realtor for 30+ years, I would never write a purchase contract without searching the property’s “history” in my MLS database, where all of the above information is available. I believe DOM is proprietary to the MLS and not public, because agents have ability to properly research actual DOM. Basing decisions, i.e. days on market, using a third-party real estate website’s data may present inaccurate information also.

  4. Posted by gallileo

    So why not just publish the full listing history in the MLS, not just as DOM? Let people look at it themselves.
    DOM is used as a proxy for the trade-off between price and desirability. If a house has been on the market for X days at Y price, then as X get’s bigger, Y looks less realistic.
    Everyone knows this, which is why the MLS likes to hide the data–so that prices are propped up.

  5. Posted by Fishchum

    Lansing/Guy is really an interesting street – it’s one way coming off of First Street and then horseshoes around to come back to First. It’s tree-lined and quite pretty, actually, although the traffic noise you need to deal with isn’t from the on ramp up by ORH – it’s the north bound off-ramp just on the western side of Essex Street.
    The location seems a little isolated right now, but when that stretch of Folsom gets filled in from First down to the Gap headquarters, it’ll be much better – though I don’t think that’ll happen for at least another ten years. It’s still a short walk to just about anything in South Beach, as well as the Yerba Buena / MOMA area.

  6. Posted by tipster

    Lavishly remodled basement. WTF were they thinking?
    Only the bank will buy this.

  7. Posted by Willow

    Is that gas station on the corner going to be torn down any time soon? I think it’s just about the highest prices in the city…

  8. Posted by lyqwyd

    SJNative, it’s deceptive, that’s the gripe. If agents didn’t think there was some benefit to doing it they wouldn’t do it.

  9. Posted by scurvy

    $721k. You don’t get any of that furniture or decor in the sale. Looking past that stuff, it’s an average place in a building with a crappy facade in a undesirable location.

  10. Posted by FormerAptBroker

    SJnative wrote:
    > I don’t get the ‘days on market’ gripe
    > by many. As a South Bay realtor for 30+
    > years, I would never write a purchase
    > contract without searching the property’s
    > “history” in my MLS database, where all of
    > the above information is available.
    That’s great that (as a realtor for over 30+ years) you can pull up lots of data, but I have never heard Realtors “gripe” about this. Most of the “gripes” I have herad are from new buyers who get a place after being told by the Realtor “you need to move fast, it has only been on the market for ONE day and is is sure to go fast” then find out that the place has actually been “on the market” since 2008…

  11. Posted by SJnative

    The full history IS published in the MLS. A professional Realtor helping a client make an offer will make sure the accurate history is used in negotiating that offer. Maybe accurate information is why some people choose to use a Realtor in purchasing a property?

  12. Posted by tc_sf

    @ SJnative –It would seem to reduce confidence in the market to agree that the public facing information is deceptive, and then say that if you go through a broker he *might* use the accurate info to help you. (As he might also use the accurate info to help himself)
    Contrast this with the oft-malighed stock market where, although it unfortunately occurs with regularity, insider trading is actually illegal and Regulation FD encourages general public availability of information that may once have been disclosed to a select few.

  13. Posted by SJnative

    “might” is your word, not mine. I “always” check a property’s history through the MLS database. Not a third-party website.
    Most agents make a living by handling transactions, not taking the best deals for their own account. Most don’t have that financial ability. And especially now with new lending laws.

  14. Posted by lyqwyd

    I think tc_sf uses “might” since even though you may be professional, other agents may not, so the “might” applies to agents as a profession, not you in particular.

  15. Posted by tc_sf

    My point was not that you personally were acting unethically, but rather that allowing the public facing information to be inaccurate allows for the potential of unethical behavior and gives the consumer good reason to wonder what may or may not be happening.

  16. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    “Maybe accurate information is why some people choose to use a Realtor in purchasing a property?”
    And who doesn’t like accurate information ? But doesn’t it seem costly to pay realtors 5-6% to receive accurate information when the same could be delivered for free over teh newfangled internets ?
    If the real estate industry is hanging on to their role as a gatekeeper for basic transactional information as the last bastion of their relevance then we are nearing the end of RE agent as a career path.
    It would be much wiser for realtors to free up this basic information and instead focus on market analysis and mentoring their clients, two valuable services that could be done better.

  17. Posted by scurvy

    Can we drop the annoying realtor/real estate system arguing and talk about the f-ing property for once?
    Editor, you had better start policing the forums to keep people on topic lest you lose readers.

  18. Posted by Fishchum

    Thanks, Scurvy. I was just about to post the same thing.

  19. Posted by Owl

    It’s awfully hard to see the bones of the condo behind all the staging. I agree with scurvy – what I can make out once I remove the flowers and artwork doesn’t impress me.

  20. Posted by EH

    I’m not much for sterile neighborhoods, but I like this little block.

  21. Posted by suspicious

    I’ll buy the furniture.

  22. Posted by sfrenegade

    I agree with Owl that the staging makes it hard to see the bones here. I have a hard time believing that this is actually 1400 sqft from the pictures, for one thing. The remodeling is not particularly impressive and is basically fad of the day, the kitchen is not very functional, and the location is terrible.
    I don’t see the downside of being able to discuss both the property in question and the surrounding issues about a misleading listing in the same post. There’s no reason for the editor to police people on this type of thing as far as I’m concerned.

  23. Posted by ILike

    I agree — pretty. The kich, not so much. I so heart cantilevered stairs. 🙂

  24. Posted by tc_sf

    Re DOM: Just stumbled across this via CR. It appears that NAR via is attempting to address the DOM issue by changing it to “Days on Site”. The article is light on details though.

    “In the past, sellers’ agents could, if they wanted, conceal the total days on the market by taking homes off for a day or two and relisting under a new MLS number. But now the MLS displays a cumulative days-on-the-market figure that is tied to a home’s address.

    “You can’t hide it,” said Jason Graves, a broker and listing partner with Linda Craft & Team Realtors in Raleigh.”

    Note though for the property that is the subject of this post, the “Days on Site” shows as 32.

  25. Posted by tipster

    Dropped to $799.
    It’s still a basement in a ridiculous area.

  26. Posted by SocketSite

    The listing for 75 Lansing #1 has been withdrawn from the MLS after 172 days on the market without a reported sale.
    Last asking $799,000, the “lavishly remodeled” unit had been listed for $1,098,000 at the end of 2010.

  27. Posted by SocketSite

    UPDATE: Having fetched $1.18 million in the fourth quarter of 2014, 75 Lansing Street #1 is back.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles