953 Hampshire
As we wrote in February:

The listing calls it a prized three-bedroom single-family home in the Mission with a three-car garage that’s listed for $425 per square foot ($799,000). We’ll call it perfectly livable with room for improvement(s) and bits of Victorian charm.

So, will a quick sale for 953 Hampshire be a sure sign of a “hot” market in San Francisco? Well, it all depends upon your perspective.

At $425 per listed square foot, 953 Hampshire would appear to have been priced between 2001 and 2002 values. And with a median sale price per square of $585 for single-family homes in the area in 2010 (down from $607 in 2009 and a peak of $699 in 2007), we’ll let you make a few calls of your own.

The sale of 953 Hampshire closed escrow last week with a reported contract price of $900,000. At $478 per square foot, call it just above the area average of $446 per square in 2003, albeit with 50 percent more listed square feet than the average home.
Will 953 Hampshire Be “Hot” At $425 Per Listed Square Foot? [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by [anon.ed]

    call it … albeit? Don’t think so. The albeit clause in that sentence is the deciding factor, as the Mission has a ceiling.
    900K, on Hampshire, in this market. Wow.

  2. Posted by Greg

    Well I commented on the original post and predicted $925K … I think that makes me the closest prediction unless we’re playing by Price is Right rules. 🙂
    And to Anon — actually Hampshire is a really nice street — and as someone who closed on a house in the Mission this year, I can tell you that SF is definitely bucking the trends in the rest of the country — most houses are getting 5-10 bids and going $50-150K over asking.

  3. Posted by vanillablue

    I commented on the original post and figured ~$850K, but I’m not surprised to see $900K. There just aren’t a lot of SFR’s available in this price range and as Greg noted, Hampshire is a nice street and the nearby stretch of 24th street is rapidly improving. But if “most houses” are going over asking (which I’m not sure is really the case), I suspect it’s more because sellers’ agents are doing more strategic underpricing, as was clearly the case here. I don’t think it means that SF is “bucking the trends”.

  4. Posted by doug

    there will be major buyer-regret here, they paid too much for that street. The neighborhood is only going to modestly improve, and there is a ceiling for how much sweat equity they can put into it. but if they love it, and commute south, maybe the premium is right for them.

  5. Posted by Samuel

    There was another SFH in the southeastern Inner Mission that has similar sq footage, was asking $995,000, and went pending about a month ago. I went to the open house and I wish I remember what the address is. If anyone know which I’m talking about, please share.

  6. Posted by curmudgeon

    ^Samuel…954 Florida @ 995. Shows as contingent on redfin. I didn’t see the Hampshire house, but I did see the Florida one, and I was surprised to see it go contingent so quickly. To my mind it had some negatives for that price point. Inner Mission is surprisingly strong IMO.
    I live in the neighborhood, and really love it, despite the bashing it gets on here from some quarters. Recently released census data has confirmed how much it is gentrifying.

  7. Posted by Samuel

    Ah yes, that’s the one. Thanks curmudgeon.
    I also thought 954 Florida would be a challenge at that price point, but if 953 Hampshire went for $900k, then I suppose 954 Florida may actually be fairly well priced. I do remember a lot of serious buyers at the open houses for both 953 Hampshire and 954 Florida. You can tell they’re serious when they’re measuring rooms and talking about about furniture arrangement.
    I guess my point is that if 954 Florida sold for 90% of its asking price then 953 Hampshire is not overpaid. You know what they say – if it happens to one house its an anomaly, if it happens to two, it’s a trend.
    Also agreed that the neighborhood is well into its gentrification. All the people at the open houses are not of the demographic that reside in the area thirty years ago. I go to 24th st often and I love that area.

  8. Posted by Greg

    713 York also just closed at $840K. It was not quite as nice and not quite as big as 953 Hampshire, so I think these sound like good comps.
    The market dictates what things are worth, and it looks pretty clear to me that family friendly houses on the east side of the Mission (which I would consider the “bad” side of the Mission — no offensive — I live here, but I’d be on the other side of Mission St. if I could afford it) are worth $800-$900K.

  9. Posted by Schlub

    From what I know, 954 Florida went for “well over asking, cash offer”. Don’t know anything more.
    The Hampshire house was a solid home, smartly priced. I’m happy to see the Inner Mission holding it’s own.

  10. Posted by Samuel

    Uh, I remember 713 York now. Good call, Greg. I went to so many open houses at that time that they kind of melt together in mind. Yeah, that house is little smaller than the other two, not updated, and has an illegal in-law that the owner was using as a music room. $840k is honestly a little higher than I anticipated. I thought somewhere between $720k to $780k. Damn, $840 is actually higher than the sales price from 2007 ($762k), and I don’t think they put in any reno between 2007 to now unless the illegal inlaw was constructed during that time.
    Schlub, if you’re right then I just have to say “Wow.” Never thought 954 Florida would get close to asking, let alone “well over asking” plus “cash offer.” I’m far from a bear, and I might even be called a small bull but even I didn’t see this coming. Inner Mission is hot!

  11. Posted by A.T.

    “most houses are getting 5-10 bids and going $50-150K over asking.”
    I doubt this. Here are the sales stats for January and February:
    http://www.rereport.com/sf/index.html
    For SFRs, sale/list ratio was 98.6% and 98.1% in January and February; for condos it was 97.4% and 97.8%. “List price” is manipulated in this industry to depict a higher ratio, and there is no plausible way you end up with less than 100% (i.e. selling below list) marketwide if “most” places are selling at “over asking.”*
    The SF market shows continuing weakness by any measure other than realtor spin — and on that measure it is right in line with every other market in the country, i.e. “bucking the trends.”
    * Yes, I know, it is statistically possible depending on how the marketwide ratio is calculated, but extremely unlikely under any method.

  12. Posted by [anon.ed]

    I think Greg was exaggerating a bit based off his own personal experience. What’s true is that about half of the Inner Mission houses, 16/33 since 1/1/10, sold in the last year or so have gone for “over asking.”

  13. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Err, over original list price. Add a couple more for “over asking.”

  14. Posted by 94114

    “most houses are getting 5-10 bids and going $50-150K over asking.”
    I’ve noticed that quite a few properties in January of this year and the last few years were priced low to generate multiple bids and did sell for over asking. There must be a lot of pent up demand at the beginning of the year. If last year is anything like this year, I’m not so sure the buyers of these properties are going to be as pleased with themselves in 6 months. I would never get involved in a multiple bid situation but if I ever sell my place, January through March seems like the time to get the best price.

  15. Posted by tc_sf

    “if “most” places are selling at “over asking.”*”
    What you want here is the median value of sold/list which is the correct way to see if most ( >50%) of places are selling above or below ask. I’m not sure who would publish this.
    Note though that this is not the same as the ratio of the medians.

  16. Posted by Greg

    OK — I cannot speak for the whole market … in my experience house hunting for over a year in the Mission, anything that is reasonably priced, in reasonable shape, and doesn’t have some crazy situation like a protected hoarder tenant (seen a couple of those) gets multiple bids and goes way over asking.
    Agents definitely like to low ball prices in SF to incite bidding wars. On one place listed for $875,000, I bid $1,210,000 and still didn’t get it. Another was listed for $775,000, I bid $935,000 and was outbid.
    On the place I actually got, I bid 13% over asking and I got it. And based on the comps listed here, I didn’t overpay.

  17. Posted by vanillablue

    Greg, I think what you are saying applies to a specific segment of the market: non-fixer-upper SFR’s in decent parts of the Mission and Bernal, priced $700K-$900K. Regardless of overall trends, this market remains competitive because the areas are convenient whether you work in the city or peninsula, it’s a more reasonable price point for younger couples, and there just isn’t a lot of supply. But even if this micro-market is holding up, it doesn’t mean much overall–condos in the same areas are certainly not going for over asking.

  18. Posted by Samuel

    vanillablue, Greg said “houses” in the Mission District are consistently going over asking. He didn’t say anything about condos.
    And judging by the stats thus far, it does seem like he’s right. Although it’s hard for me to imagine a house asking $875k would bid above $1.2 million. I mentioned before that the Inner Mission is hot, but I didn’t know it’s THIS hot.
    [Editor’s Note: Keep in mind that unless houses are being priced at market, “over asking” simply speaks to pricing strategy rather than the “hotness” of the market. Consider Greg’s last paragraph, paying 13 percent “over asking” but a price that’s in line with comps.]

  19. Posted by sfrenegade

    I’m assuming the people who claim SocketSite only has bearish posts won’t read this thread.
    I personally don’t understand these prices in this part of the Mission, although hipster-type neighborhoods always draw higher prices than I’d think. The “over asking” part was no surprise — even tipster thought it would go for $850K.

  20. Posted by [anon.ed]

    It is an undeniable fact that the city has gentrified southward. It’s particularly true across the Noe/Glen Park/Bernal/Mission/Potrero/Dog Patch swatch. That is the flat answer to approximately 43% of the debates that occur on Socketsite.

  21. Posted by eddy

    I frequently reference over/under when I feel it represents buyer interest. It’s hard to use it reliable since the “under” figure is frequently tweaked by list price adjustments. My current thesis is that most homes are selling for realistic market prices. Over/under is just a metric. The sale price comp in comparison to the prior sale and year vintage are all that matters. Even that is hard to measure as values swung up and down, mostly up, between 99-2010, but some big downs as well.

  22. Posted by curmudgeon

    Meanwhile…a complete fixer at 949 Hampshire just sold for 740K…way over it’s teaser list of 559K, but @335/square foot (of MLS listed space, but not according to assessor). Needs new everything, but seems to have good bones. Mission still hot, it seems? (redfin linked at name)

  23. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Yeah, that fixer did that. And a new house just went for 1.26M over there on the next block. It was large so the $psqft won’t read as all that exceptional, but the pricepoint is very telling. I have mixed feelings about this gentrification as I’ve lived in and around the Mission for going on 20 years. But at the end of the day it is the idiots who keep shooting people, so doggone it bring on the richies.

  24. Posted by Brian

    And the redone 944 Hampshire just went for $1.68M ($759/sq ft). 949 is being completely redone as well. I doubt that there’s any buyer’s remorse at 953 Hampshire right about now.

  25. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    Are you kidding me, I have fence-sitters remorse!

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Articles