The sale of 112 Mallorca Way closed escrow yesterday with a reported contract price of $3,479,000 ($745 per square foot), 6 percent ($204,000) over its August 2006 purchase price of $3,275,000 for the Marina District two-unit property.
∙ 112 Mallorca Way Count Down (And Possibly Up) [SocketSite]
From the other thread: “congratulations to the 2006 buyer”
The only people who should be congratulated are the 2006 buyer’s agents who extracted $80k when they bought and $175k when they sold.
On the other hand, the 2006 buyer paid $200k in property tax, $800k in interest/opportunity cost, and $175k in commissions for their $200k “gain”.
that was my comment, and yes, you buy at the peak of the bubble and escape not with tipster’s standard 35% loss, not with AT’s 2000 + 7% feels about right prime pricing but, instead, with a price that covers your commission and more, and yes, I’d say well done.
3.5m for that ugly POS, a sucker is born everyday in the Marina
The Marina didn’t peak until 2007/2008, up ~10% from 2006.
^ I doubt you’re really an ex-agent, trying to slap an average on an individual property like that, one. Secondly this looks like the second highest 2-unit sold over the years 2006-2008. The other one was 1547-1549 Francisco, and that property was 1000+ feet larger.
I don’t know anything about the Francisco place, but this property is much closer to a single family than a traditional duplex.
I believe it was even listed as a single family. The second unit looks like a small studio, suitable for an au-pair or something like that.
Hate the color. Hate the windows. Nuffield said.
Dang. Hate the way the IPad makes changes to my text. Should be nuff said.
In another news, 437-439 Connecticut was asking 15% over its 2007 sales and sold very quickly. 713 York sold for almost $100k over its 2007 price. So, it’s not unheard of to see properties sold above 2007 prices. It depends on the property. It’ll be interesting to see how much 437-439 Connecticut sold for.
“In another news, 437-439 Connecticut was asking 15% over its 2007 sales and sold very quickly.”
As I understand, there were structural changes made to 437-439 Connecticut since the prior sale. Are you saying it sold at the $1.495M asking? Doesn’t appear to have closed escrow yet according to Redfin, although it appears to have gone into contract quickly.
I’m fairly certain 713 York had a decent amount of work done since 2007.
Neither of these appear to be apples.
Just about everything in Potrero Hill is selling, with multiple bids, unless it is ridiculously priced. Makes sense. Look at all the positive developments underway that will be finished within the next couple years.
Winner of the 2011 “House that looks like a grave marker” award.
Sorry, but its just the truth.
sfrenegade, If there were structural changes to 437-439 Connecticut, the listing agent didn’t mention it. He said 437 was re-built in 1990 and 438 was updated around the same time, and that was the extend of it. If there was restructuring the BID site has no record of it. I did not, and in no way, imply/hint/suggest that it sold at asking. That’s why I said we’ll find out soon enough.
Also, if 713 York has a “decent amount of work done” then it is not cosmetic and BID has no record of it. I toured the open house, it was not updated at all – mostly original parts from before I was born. In fact, the new owner just got a permit to redo the kitchen and other works. So if money was spend it was for repairing stuff that we don’t see. I’m curious why you are certain significant work was done to the house. If so, was it a foundation fix, plumbing fix, electrical update, etc?
There’s definitely been recent work done on Connecticut:
http://dbiweb.sfgov.org/dbipts/Default2.aspx?page=AddressData2&ShowPanel=BID
The top 2 are permits for work totaling $13,000. As previously mentioned by others, the amount listed on permits is usually lower than the actual amount spent on the work.
In case the link doesn’t work, here’s the permit information:
Permit # Block Lot Street # Street Name Unit Current Stage Stage Date
201105035254 4067 022 439 CONNECTICUT ST COMPLETE 06/10/2011
201105115790 4067 022 439 CONNECTICUT ST COMPLETE 06/10/2011
Hideous. Does it fly?
I stand corrected. Good find lyqwyd. However, $13,000 of work doesn’t explain the $200,000 price increase from 2007 to 2011 (assuming the seller got close to the asking price which I assume the case since it’s sold so quickly). Even if the stated cost is 2X more than the stated cost (say $26,000) it still doesn’t explain it. I get that most houses are down from 2007, but I do see some houses sell for above 2007 price and I provided two examples. I’m sure there more out there.
“I stand corrected. ”
I don’t think you’re using the websites properly. There are permits on both properties, as mentioned. The permit on 713 York says kitchen remodel, firewall added, relocate water heater and furnace, new stairs. The permit is not closed yet.
As I said, neither of those two houses are apples — they’ve both had work done. The actual cost can easily be 5-10 times (or more) the stated cost. There are plenty of houses with work done that are selling for more than 2007 — this is not really a challenge.
sfrenegade, you should check the date on the permit. It was pull AFTER the house has been sold.
“sfrenegade, you should check the date on the permit. It was pull AFTER the house has been sold. ”
You’re right — my mistake. The date of the permit is after the sale. So then that brings back the original question — is it an apple?
Agreed sfrenegade, the question is whether 713 York is an apple. I’m incline to say yes based on the evidence so far – no record of improvement from BID and no visual sign of it during the open house. And even if there are some repair jobs here and there, I can’ imagine it to have cost enough to explain the roughly $80k appreciation from 2007 to 2011. The only thing that I could think of is a tenant situation that existed in 2007 that resolved in 2011. But again, I don’t if that is the case or not; and even if there was one, if it was severe enough to explain the appreciation considering there is no rent control in a SFH.
http://www.hgtv.com/video/san-fran-victorian-restored-video/index.html?soc=share