Asking $1,950,000 in September 2006, the three-bedroom condo atop 255 Berry Street known as #610 was purchased by former San Francisco Giants #35 Rich Aurilia for $1,750,000 in January 2007. Obviously he didn’t overpay.
Then again the 2,293 square foot condo with a 700 square foot-ish terrace overlooking the creek is back on the market today and asking $1,650,500. And yes, the condo was also listed from September to December last year at $1,750,000, albeit a bit more quietly that time around.
The sale of 255 Berrry #610 closed escrow today with a reported contract price of $1,550,000, 11.4 percent ($200,000) under its January 2007 sale price.
∙ Former Giants #35 Is Looking To Sell (255 Berry) #610 [SocketSite]
∙ 255 Berry: Seven Percent Active [SocketSite]
$675 sq/ft; someone overpaid.
“obviously he didn’t overpay”
Again, they don’t need batting practice snarklobs. They can splash hit snarkhomers all by themselves.
I said this when it came up a while back, but I still think this is a family friendly condo…
it has its plusses and minuses, but I think there are more plusses than minuses with this place.
sale price higher than many bears expected
Place is very impressive. Anybody who saw it in person would agree – best property in that specific area of South Beach I’ve ever seen. I imagine we have some typical Socketsite posters taking the average ppsf of the immediate area, including a bunh of 1 bd sh*tboxes facing Berry St under the shadows of the Arterra, and calling it overpaying.
See these places, in person, and go from there.
It’s a nice looking place, but I’m sure getting tired of the wide angle lenses used on a huge number of listings in the MLS.
@Agent415, why do agents so frequently seem to feel the need to try and trick buyers?
Speaking of sports stars who have expensive places, check out Allen Iverson’s house in Colorado that just got foreclosed:
http://www.businessinsider.com/house-of-the-day-allen-iversons-colorado-home-foreclosed-after-nearly-1-million-in-price-reductions-2011-3
This actually has the interior space for a wide angle shot. Whether or not individuals find it entertaining is irrelevant.
“sale price higher than many bears expected”
As Charlie Sheen would say, “winning!”
And all the others that don’t?
I didn’t ask why they used a wide angle here, but why agents try to reck buyers so frequently.
I feel like wide angle shots of small spaces make them look small?
This was a good result. Trophy properties ready to move in with views are still doing pretty well.
Meanwhile, there are nothin’ special needs everything properties like 1438 Filbert #402 taking it in the chin. It just sold for $100K under the year 2001 price.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/1438-Filbert-St-94109/unit-402/home/1049732
I agree this was a good result. He only lost $200k + another ~$100k in selling costs.
He can certainly spare $350k, and I’m sure the same can be said of most of the people who buy in SF.