Purchased for $1,560,000 in April 2008, up from $1,395,000 in January 2006, the Mission Dolores home at 126 Dolores is back on the market and listed for $1,575,000.
And with that living room and Hypermotard in the house, we’re almost willing to overlook the “where even the weather is hip” and “fairy tales do come true” copy. Almost.
∙ Listing: 126 Dolores (3/2) 2,280 sqft – $1,575,000 [126dolores.com] [MLS]
gorgeous house. great location. unfortunately sandwiched between two large, ugly apartment buildings.
The staging depresses me. It looks cheap.
LOVE the windows and the wooden beams in the living room and the sweet backyard though.
I don’t think the plastic spatula collection, kitschy tchotchkes, and garage full of junk are staging…although at this price point the house should have been staged. At least for me, seeing all the owners’ thrift-store furniture and clutter is a huge turnoff. Looks like the house has some fetching details, but many “improvements” over the years, such as the ghastly bathrooms, will be pricey to undo for anyone looking to reclaim the charm. Good staging could have distracted from the need for expensive remodeling – the current appearance emphasizes it.
That toilet scares me. Like a scene from Rosemary’s Baby.
Let’s have more staging. Lots more. The real estate world lacks staging. Staging is a profitable enterprise for stagers and perhaps the listers.
Maybe we should do some staging in theaters. Now that would be a great new idea.
Notice that the city with the largest increase in prices in 2010, and perhaps the highest price per square foot in the western world, Paris, does no staging at all, ever. Except in theaters.
conifer, we’re all adherents to Chicago School of Economics-style Rational expectations theory now, which in this case means that if staging didn’t work, no rational seller would pony up the money to pay for it.
Since lots and lots of sellers (if not the majority in the upper price tier) cough up the money to pay for staging, ergo, it must produce a sales price higher than the sum of the amount of the sales price that would have been produced without staging plus the amount paid to the stager or staging company.
Anyone with empirical data to refute this hypothesis should have an immediately-publishable result. But good luck with that.
(all of the above was intended to be sarcastic)
“Rational” is definitely the term. There’s no real way to determine if staging was actually worth it. But good professionals will have an eye for that, I am sure.
I hate staging as a buyer,. I feel like someone wants to sell me a lifestyle instead of a piece of property. I’ll pick the lifestyle myself, thank you very much. Or actually my wife will 😉 Staging is also a non-productive expense. No extra square foot was added. No extra comfort, amenity, etc… Ultimately the buyer pays for most stagings.
Sellers aren’t coming up with the idea of staging on their own. They’re getting advice from their trusted agent who feels that staging helps move the property faster and just might have a GREAT stager who can make this property shine.
Whether or not the benefit of staging covers or exceeds its own cost is something that probably no one knows for sure. I hope that some PhD student studies this some day because some real info would help understand the value of staging.
My gut feel as that staging isn’t worth the cost except for tract developments where one example of each floorplan can be staged. So stage one floorplan and the cost can be amortized across twenty empty homes. [funny staging story : I know someone who bought the model in a tract development with all of the staging included. After moving in she discovered that all of the staged linens (towels, washcloths, napkins, placements, etc.) as well as other decorative features like books, vases, etc. where hot glued together and worthless.]
I know that everyone on Socketsite can totally envision how a space will be when you have your stuff in it, but lots of people can’t. Without a table lots of people don’t get that the room between the living room and kitchen is the dining room. They cannot see how big a bed is in place and if furniture will fit or not.
I find that staging doesn’t add to the sales amount it just allows more possible buyers to think it may be the home for them.
Also, there is the whole group think of “They didn’t stage this house they must not have the money to stage it, let’s lowball.”
“I find that staging doesn’t add to the sales amount it just allows more possible buyers to think it may be the home for them.”
I totally agree and widening the market generally also has a positive effect on the sales price.
There’s no doubt that in general staging will result in a higher sales price. There is doubt however that the benefits exceed the cost.
They cannot see how big a bed is in place
True. As long as the staging is done using normal-sized furniture. I mean, queen size is a standard, but you often see smaller beds in staging.
They didn’t stage this house they must not have the money to stage it, let’s lowball.
The sales team could serve caviar, foie gras and champagne to make the seller look like he’s made of money. Pleeeeaaaase tell them it works.
I know that everyone on Socketsite can totally envision how a space will be when you have your stuff in it
600 misplaced “work triangle” critiques beg to differ.
What is that toilet all about? Releasing the beast within? I don’t get it. Nice house though.
There’s no way I’m paying this much for a house unless the toilet includes built-in ashtray and plays a tune when flushed.
Do not be suckered by the white porcelain beast: an inferior substitute for a true throne.
Re: the never ending debate about staging.
I do think that it can be surprisingly hard to judge how furniture can fit in a room. And for that, I find a little bit of staging helpful.
What I object to is when staging seeks to wow with a lifestyle illusion, and hide or deceive rather than illustrate or explain. Of course, this kind of “wow” staging is also quite expensive. A very few pieces of furniture is plenty of “staging” for me. I hope that things move in that direction, and that the “stage everything to death” is so 2006 at this point….
Photographers should work with stagers and get pictures both ways, then include both in the resulting glitched-up gallery by BHO or whoever.
I like the house. The “thrift-store furniture” doesn’t bother me; I guess I’m just not that fancy. The toilet is cool, c’mon!
I do wonder about the short hold––just shy of two years. This place is out of my price range, in any case.
BTW, I had to Google “Hypermotard”. Thanks for the education, editor!
Oops, it’s 2011, isn’t it. Just shy of 3 years this time, and a bit over 2 years for the previous owner. Two short holds is a warning sign for me,
While the furniture selection is unfortunate I believe the asking price is very unrealistic. The owners appear to be attempting to recapture their original investment (plus RE Commissions & transfer fees) rather than the current FMV. This will be regrettable for the owners who are asking too much money, have a product that is not presented in its best condition (furniture) and very close to the Valencia Garden Projects.
^ Rooey: Just saying that the “Valencia Gardens Projects” are not anything like they used to be, pre-demolition. As evidence, look at Four Barrell Coffee and all the galleries, shops, etc that have popped up just across the street. The rebuilt project is (I believe) managed by Mission Housing, and seems like a totally benign presence in the neighborhood. Oh, and in my opinion has the best design of any of the Hope VI projects in SF.
^ nice work Curmudgeon. Now go print us some more color fliers for 126 Dolores, and be on time Sunday.
Geesh, the location sucks. It’s across from the ugly ass gardens, and on a super busy street with few trees at this location.
ha. curmudgeon the realtor.
No one has ever accused me of being a realtor. Jeesh.
^curmudgeon, re: “Just saying that the “Valencia Gardens Projects” are not anything like they used to be, pre-demolition. As evidence, look at Four Barrell Coffee and all the galleries, shops, etc that have popped up just across the street.” Wasn’t this just a few blocks from the gang shooting that occured last week?
What do Mission gang shootings and Valencia Gardens have to do with one another?
What I stated, rooey, is objective fact. The neighborhood around Valencia Gardens has gentrified a great deal in the last few years. I have to assume (this is the subject part) that people feel safer on the streets around the project post construction. I haven’t checked crime stats, but I’m guessing they have declined. One gang shooting anecdote does not prove/disprove anything.
The just-released 2010 Census demographic data for the Mission District show striking change.
In census tract 022902, (historically turf of the Nortenos), the white population increased by 38% between 2000 and 2010, while the Latino population decreased by 26%. In census tract 022801,(historically home of the Surenos), the white population increased by 61%, while the Latino population decreased by 24%. However, citywide, the Latino population increased by 11%, with little change in the numbers of whites.
The result is that instead of a Latino population concentrated in the Mission and a few other districts, Latinos are becoming much more evenly spread across the city, which makes gang turf increasingly an anachronism.
great info, Dan! It would be great if you’d provide some rough boundaries since census tracts aren’t as familiar as zip codes or real estate districts… Did you quote the tract that includes Valencia Gardens? It would be interesting to know what happened there. Thanks!
You can see each census tract and its demographic change here:
http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_17567216?nclick_check=1
@Dan – While I haven’t yet looked at the 2010 data, from looking at prior years I’d guess that looking at the changes in ethnicity on a relative basis might miss the big picture of absolute percentages since some ethnicity’s (such as white in 229.02) may have started from a very low base.
While this definatly shows some change in the mission, given that the gang injunctions were as recent as 2007 and five people just got shot next to Pacho Villa a few days ago. It is perhaps premature to call gang turn an anachronism.
“In census tract 022902, (historically turf of the Nortenos), the white population increased by 38% between 2000 and 2010, ”
One interesting thing from the link Dan sent regarding demographic change is that granularity makes a huge difference in the result. On the county or city level, most places in the Bay Area became more white, less Asian and Latino, and black was 50/50. On a census tract level, however, there’s a lot more variation.
This house is showing pending in the MLS.