4027 Cesar Chavez
As we wrote last month:

The “quintessential peaked roof Victorian home” at 4027 Cesar Chavez over in Noe Valley was remodeled, “expanded & opened to a fabulous garden” in 1999 having been purchased for $415,000 in 1994.

Listed for $1,749,000 in May 2007, it sold for $1,650,000 that June.

It’s now four years later and the quintessential Noe Valley home is back on the market and listed for $1,595,000.

On Monday, the sale of 4027 Cesar Chavez closed escrow with a reported contract price of $1,650,000 ($776 per square foot).
A Quintessential Noe Valley Victorian On Our Apple Tree [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by R

    Must be a typo. Not down at all from peak? Nope, can’t be right. After all, A.T. says:
    Down 25-40% from peak, fluj. Some places a little better (like Noe), and a few places a lot worse.
    Posted by: A.T. at August 1, 2011 8:09 PM

  2. Posted by [anon.ed]

    It’s another single case of that particular market segment, the 1.4 to 1.7M decent family house in a good area, continuing to do well throughout both the past market and this market. Think about it. Where is it going to go? If not Noe, Cole Valley and surrounding, or Inner Richmond and surrounding, then where? A few blocks in Potrero Hill? North of California this house is 2M. It’s the range in which working families with money — from wherever — can afford.

  3. Posted by A.T.

    Gee, R, I thought I was pretty clear that Noe has performed better than SF in general. This result is certainly on the far with side of the curve, as one would expect some places will be. Of course, “Noe” and “San Francisco” are not coterminous.

  4. Posted by R

    No, A.T., you were pretty clear that some places performed ‘slightly better’ than down 25-30%. Not sure how you get ‘slightly’ from a sale price that is the same as at peak.

  5. Posted by [anon.ed]

    R, when it comes to this AT doesn’t care. OK? He says his pat stuff to annoy. And that’s all there is to it. Don You can look up any neighborhood, display peak to now figures, and he’ll still talk. Don’t bother.

  6. Posted by lyqwyd

    We’ve had this debate before, even in good areas the performance can vary quite a bit.
    We’ve even seen some properties sell for over the “peak” price, and in some bad neighborhoods they’ve gone down by over 60%, but both are few and far between. I think AT’s prior statements are not invalidated by the fact that some properties have not been completely demolished in price, and is in fact more accurate than cherry picking the few relatively good performances as somehow indicative of the overall market.
    Prices are down significantly in SF on average. Some neighborhoods have fared better than others, but all have been affected.

  7. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    This result is why I am still sitting on the sidelines.
    We could afford this place if we sold our current house and used the proceeds as down payment on this one but I really don’t want to stretch like that.
    I really liked another house in Noe but noticed that it went into contract before even the first open house:
    130 Vicksburg
    Anyone know what the deal here is? Was this place already sold off market and just listed so that it would get on the MLS? It is a good price in an ideal location.

  8. Posted by RenterAgain

    There was an open house for 130 Vicksburg, and it was packed. (It is indeed an ideal location; I rent near by.) It isn’t as great a deal as it seems from the MLS photos. While the original rooms on the main floor are quite nice, the floor plan is really wacky.
    It has one bedroom on the main floor and three “bedrooms” on the top floor. You have to walk through one of those bedrooms to get to the third one. There is a long narrow shower that can only be accessed from a carpeted hall on the top floor. (I guess it was converted from a hall closet?) There are several places on the main floor where there’s an odd step down into a room, indicating some add-ons done in the past.
    So while the open house was packed, many people were walking around with quizzical expressions, asking questions like, “Where’s the refrigerator?”, and saying things like, “No wonder this is priced so low.”
    I don’t think the realtor/sellers would have bothered to stage it if they had a buyer before listing it. I think the buyer put the offer in right after the first open house. Even with its flaws, it’s a relatively good deal for NV. (I’m convinced that there are no actual good deals in Noe, except perhaps for contractor/developers. I’m still flummoxed that just down the block, 156 Vicksburg, a small 3/2 on a small lot, sold for 1.6M.)

  9. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Anyone know what the deal here is? Was this place already sold off market and just listed so that it would get on the MLS? It is a good price in an ideal location.

    No, it was legitimate. There was a brief window in which to move on 130 Vicksburg. For our purposes it was a little bit in between things. Nice enough to be priced well over 1M, but still really funky and in need of a lot of work in order to be a 2.5M house. I thought that the thing to do would have been to completely lose the rear garage structures and in so doing grab a pretty decent backyard.

  10. Posted by DanRH

    @lyqwyd, A.T. was off because he did say ‘a little’..this is not a ‘little’ better than -20% and neither is another one I posted on a few posts back. I don’t think folks are saying it’s indicative of the overall market either, they’re just saying the blanket statement he said is off.
    130 Vicksburg: according to the realtor (yeah, i know..grain of salt), it had about 200 people at the Sunday open. I went to the following Tues evening opening and agree – place is perfect from a location and it has some great qualities. Move in-now, or you could spend $400k and probably turn it into a $2.2M place. Interested to see what it’ll go for. They clearly priced it way low to attract a frenzy of folks, but not sure what that means from a sale-price.
    Also, 130 Vicks had a really large sq ft listed but didn’t understand if that included the rear garage structure (former horse barn) or not.

  11. Posted by lyqwyd

    His statement is for the most part correct, and far more correct than any implication that his statement is wrong because of a few outliers. The market is down significantly from peak, which was the point of his statement.
    You are treating his statement as if any refutation of the smallest item in it (which you haven’t even really done sine “a little” is open to interpretation) invalidates the entire conclusion. The value of the statement is in the overall conclusion, which is that the market is significantly down, not the exactness of the statement. You are engaging in a logical fallacy know as the Straw Man Attack.

  12. Posted by [anon.ed]

    The value of the statement is in the overall conclusion, which is that the market is significantly down, not the exactness of the statement.
    That’s opinion.
    Specific numbers are being used repeatedly. What are numbers if not precise?
    Also, you’re reaching with trying to assign Straw Man there. Nobody needs a pedantic wiki link either.

  13. Posted by lyqwyd

    How about this: If there is any value in the statement It’s in the overall conclusion, not the exactness of the statement.
    I don’t care if you think there’s no value in the statment, if that’s the case then there’s even less value in attacking irrelevant parts of it.
    I know I’m being pedantic, it’s intentional. And it’s not reaching at all to say he’s using straw man. He’s clearly holding up the “little” part as the straw man and using it to attack the entire hypothesis.
    How is 25%-40% specific? It’s not, it’s a range, not only that but it was also quoted by the same person as being 25%-30%, so not only is it not specific, it’s not even clear which was correct. I could go check, but I don’t really care.

  14. Posted by DanRH

    Here’s my problem with his statement and your response: “the market is significantly down, 25 to 40%”, to me, draws the conclusion that everything is down significantly, and even the ‘a little / some hoods’, means instead of a -25 to -40%, that those hoods are all only -20%.
    But the conclusion I’ve just drawn above is wrong. There are instances (not just a few outliers, I believe) of stuff going down ~10% or less. That to me is a lot different than the 20-40% range.
    I am surprised that some of this stuff is only down that much, but it is. So I do have an issue with that statement.
    Now, I’m not arguing a lot of $$ was lost as it was (even this -0% specimen).

  15. Posted by lyqwyd

    Saying “the market is down X” is very different from saying “everything is down X”. Think about it in reference to the stock market. When people say the market is down, it means that stocks in general are down, even though individual stocks can be up, even massively so.
    Just because the real estate market is down doesn’t mean individual properties can’t be flat, or even up. They are not contradictory statements.

  16. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Are you being serious? Of course it’s a range. But it’s a specific one. And he says it over and over again, for effect. You can’t sit there and say, “The overall message that the market is down is what’s important here.” Nobody’s arguing that the market isn’t down. But dude is saying 25 to 40 every chance he gets, and it’s wrong.

  17. Posted by lyqwyd

    Specific in what sense?
    He’s wrong in his range? OK, what’s the correct number? You must know what it is if you are so certain he’s wrong.

  18. Posted by spencer

    i went to 130 vicksburg. there were about 3 other people there in the 20 minutes i spent there. It was a lot smaller than it looks in the photos. the floors in the kitchen are completely uneven. I can only imagine this is from some sort of water damage. I did not find it appealing inside. outside and locale are great

  19. Posted by A.T.

    Here, I’ll explain a little very simple statistics for fluj et al so you can understand what I meant. Most seem to have the basic background, but a few appear not to.
    My “down 25-40% some a little more some a little less” is simply shorthand for describing a normal distribution curve with -25% and -40% being the points within one standard deviation of the mean (down about 1/3). Some places perform a little better or worse (say two std deviations away), some a lot better or worse (3 std deviations) and a very few show fantastic results or truly sh**ty results (to use a technical term in statistics). So no, this does NOT mean “everything” is down significantly, although it does mean that the vast majority of homes are down significantly (I find 25-40% down to be significant).
    That’s all. Nothing remarkable. One sale at the 2007 price doesn’t change things, and one sale at 65% off the 2007 price doesn’t change things.

  20. Posted by [anon.ed]

    It’s quite clear, this is simple statistics, nobody needs your pedantry or condescencion, you yourself post more forced single property cherry picked redfin outliers than anybody, and the vast majority is not down 25 to 40 percent. Pick any area’s peak quareter, except D10 and Soma condos. Compare it to now. It will not be in that range.

  21. Posted by A.T.

    Fluj, you are right that if you exclude the worst performing segments of the SF market (amounting to about 1/4 of the sales) the curve for the remainder will look different. Again, anyone with an elementary understanding of statistics would be aware of this. But that’s just playing games, not serious analysis.
    The numbers for D9 and D10 are worse than 25-40%. Carve them out, the remainder would be better — probably around negative 20-30%.

  22. Posted by [anon.ed]

    No, it’s not playing games, it’s being realistic, it’s understanding the very context of the property discussed on this website, it’s taking literally the words “vast majority” that you continue to use, and your 20 to 30 percent followup is also incorrect.

  23. Posted by A.T.

    Yes, it is “being realistic” if the only way you can support your thesis is to use phony statistics!
    Fluj, how about you answer lyqwyd’s question. What’s your number or range since peak? I’m not talking about the best performing places in the best performing neighborhoods. I’m talking about the SF-wide number or range. Let’s see if you’re willing to contribute anything other than “wrong, you’re an idiot.”

  24. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Why do you continue to say “vast majority,” and simulataneously try to pass off using a curve obviously effected by a bifurcated market? Talk about unrealistic. And as for, “wrong, you’re an idiot,” you’ve never displayed an ability to summarize my words let alone anybody else’s words without injecting personality and bias. Nobody said “idiot,” though the quickness with which you go there is duly noted. And I obviously contribute constantly on here. Again, choose an area. Peak quarter versus this past quarter. Let’s see what it looks like.

  25. Posted by [anon.ed]

    What’s your number or range since peak? I’m not talking about the best performing places in the best performing neighborhoods. I’m talking about the SF-wide number or range
    Why would that be relevant? Why would the city as a whole be relevant? Or even the city minus the bifurcated (SOMA condo total spike + sub prime using D10) worse performing, even?
    It’s only a talking point on a website. In real life, people look at property in areas that they wish to live in.
    And it isn’t about “best performing neighborhoods,” either. It can be run of the mill. For example, the other day I looked at the Sunset. As a whole, so there is obviously some distortion there (Inner Sunset/Golden Gate Heights/Inner Parkside will be better, of course):
    2007 1/1 – 5/31 — 181 sales $591 $psqft
    2011 1/1 – 5/31 — 160 sales $485 $psqft
    Even the Sunset is only down 18% from an avowed peak.
    I’d say the vast majority of nicer neighborhoods, the types usually displayed on here, are down less. More like 10 to 15 percent.

  26. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    I thought you were only interested in places north of Sacramento spencer. What were you doing in Noe, slumming? 🙂

  27. Posted by lyqwyd

    “you yourself post more forced single property cherry picked redfin outliers than anybody”
    If you are referring to me, then you have made a false statement: The link I posted refers to a property first brought to my attention on socketsite, so not cherry picked. I’m not really sure how the link being to redfin is even relevant. It’s a site that posts real estate listing information and happens to be the one I like best. It could have been a link to the original SS article, or trulia, zillow, movoto, etc.
    Regarding the above numbers, I didn’t ask how the Sunset is doing, or how the nicer neighborhoods are doing (which you haven’t even defined, so the number is useless). I asked how SF has done since peak. Just to clarify, by that I mean the entire city of SF in aggregate. People live in D10 and SOMA and they buy and sell properties, so you don’t get to just toss out those numbers because they are inconvenient.

  28. Posted by [anon.ed]

    “If you are referring to me …”
    No, I wasn’t.

  29. Posted by [anon.ed]

    “People live in D10 and SOMA and they buy and sell properties, so you don’t get to just toss out those numbers because they are inconvenient.

    Yes they do. And their comps are relevant to their areas.

  30. Posted by lyqwyd

    That’s odd that you would mention it then, cuz I was the only person who posted a redfin link in this thread.
    The area in question is San Francisco, which as stated above they are a part of, so they are also relevant to this conversation.
    I notice you still haven’t posted a number for SF.

  31. Posted by [anon.ed]

    I’m not interested in what “SF” is doing. It’s not relevant to the day to day marketplace. The market is bifurcated, one. And secondly lumping condos and SFRs together doesn’t make sense. Think of how appraisals work. Ask yourself why they don’t compare condos in one area to SFRs in another, let alone like for like in different areas.
    But since you asked:
    2007 SFRs 1/1 – 5/31 — 932 sales 622 $psqft
    2011 SFRs 1/1 – 5/31 — 905 sales 492 $psqft
    Even that isn’t at 25 percent. It’s at 21. So dispense with the 25 to 30 nonsense already.

  32. Posted by lyqwyd

    Great! some useful information.
    Here’s some other numbers:
    peak (mid 2008): 684 $psqft
    trough (early 2011): 495 $psqft
    current (June 2011): 532
    27% drop peak to trough
    22% drop peak to current
    median price:
    835/590/670 drop is 29% & 20%, respectively.
    (yes median price has flaws, as does psqft).
    There’s certainly room for further debate here… but I’m comfortable with A.T. statements being accurate.

  33. Posted by anon.ed

    Mid 2008 as peak, on here, as the adopted CW is so funny.

  34. Posted by anon@ed.com

    “..some useful information”
    Out of curiousity, what can one do with citywide-mixed info such as that? Other than exchange musings online?

  35. Posted by A.T.

    Fluj, lyqwyd is using YOUR proffered $/sf methodology, just using it correctly to reflect peak-to-current (using your methodology), as was requested, since you had incorrectly used the wrong start point which, not coincidentally, made your position not appear as weak. When your B.S. was called, you just deny as “funny” the notion that the peak time period using your measure was, in fact, the peak. I guess you were out of any reasonable options there (except, perhaps, admitting your mendacity).
    Always consistent after all these years!
    lyqwyd, do you get these numbers from the MLS or from some public source?

  36. Posted by lyqwyd

    Mid 2008 was the peak on per sq ft basis according to that particular data (trulia). The median price peaked in mid 2007. I don’t know what “as the adopted CW” means.
    To satisfy your curiosity, one can better understand the market. as in where it’s been, where it is, and where it’s going. Kind of like how looking at the S&P 500 can give useful information on the stock market.
    Not everybody is looking at the market in order to immediately buy or sell.
    It also helps one to know whether a real estate agent if full of it, when they are actually looking to buy or sell.

  37. Posted by lyqwyd

    I got these particular numbers from trulia.

  38. Posted by [anon.ed]

    lyqwyd is using YOUR proffered $/sf methodology, just using it correctly to reflect peak-to-current (using your methodology), as was requested, since you had incorrectly used the wrong start point which, not coincidentally
    My preferred methodology? When I stated repeatedly that citywide data encompasses a bifurcation? Once again your inability to temper your words + true intent (trolling) is obvious. There’s a lack of understanding as well. If you understand the SF marketplace then spring 2008 was peak for price. But 2007 was peak for both price + volume. I included peak + volume in everything I displayed, so even there, your words/criticism is invalid. My “preferred” methodology was peak + volume.

  39. Posted by A.T.

    proffered. Not preferred.

  40. Posted by [anon.ed]

    err, “peak” means period of highest price + volume. Thought I’d clarify. Lest you take this sideways into a words parsing contest like you often do.

  41. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Oh, proferred. whoops. That’ll teach me to not use a blackberry for Socketsite. Anyway, the point stands.
    Thank you ever so much for defining “proffer.” It’s a REAL obscure one, for a person in sales, especially.
    Grow up dude. Wow. The wiki stuff, the dictionary stuff? Childish internet-jerk stuff.

  42. Posted by lyqwyd

    There is peak price, and there is peak volume, they are two separate things. You haven’t even explained what your definition of peak price + volume. Do you mean dollar volume? Technically that would be price * volume. I don’t think even 5% of people would assume some combination of price and volume when asked what is the peak.

  43. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Peak is a period in time, in practical terms. When the two were at their highest together is the period in time I take as “the market peak.” To me spring 2008 was marked by an unusual amount of very high price sales moving within a much smaller sales dataset. Obviously that would skew higher. But if you want to understand 2008 as peak, go ahead.

  44. Posted by lyqwyd

    Actually peak is a point or instance, not a period or area.
    Much like the peak of a mountain is the highest point on that mountain, rather than the average of heights over a certain area. But if you want to understand peak as something other than peak, go ahead.

  45. Posted by [anon.ed]

    We’re talking real estate here. You don’t have everything happening at once in real estate, lyqwyd. “Instance” and “point” aren’t very applicable as there are overlapping longish escrow periods, unless your “instance” or “point” is a quarter or so. And that was what I said, a period of time.

  46. Posted by lyqwyd

    peak still means peak, even in real estate.

  47. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Of course it does. But if you want to distill it to a single month you might not have a dataset that’s worthwhile or representative due to inventory constraints. Better to go with a quarter, minimum.

  48. Posted by lyqwyd

    You can pick any range that you want (although in your numbers you actually used 6 months), but that’s not the peak, it’s the peak of the X months moving average (3 in this case). That’s fine and it may have it’s own utility, but it’s a different thing.
    Personally, I think one month is plenty of smoothing, I’m even fine with one week’s worth of data for SF aggregate, but I can certainly understand that others may find one week too small a sample.
    The question of what’s the best smoothing range is an entirely separate issue, which we could debate for all eternity.

  49. Posted by [anon.ed]

    I chose six months because on here, in this forum, the context is “Peak year this, peak year that,” you know? But I said a quarter, minimum. Not “a quarter.” Also in at least one of your links it’s using “month.”

  50. Posted by lyqwyd

    You can say 3 months is minimum all you want, doesn’t make it true, it’s merely your opinion. It’s certainly not what peak means.

  51. Posted by [anon.ed]

    But I didn’t say that’s what peak means.

  52. Posted by lyqwyd

    Then what’s your point, because we are talking from peak.

  53. Posted by anon.ed

    My point is that a month’s worth of data might not cut the mustard.

  54. Posted by lyqwyd

    Might not for you sure, but does for many others. Notice how dataquick and case-shiller put out monthly reports.

  55. Posted by anon.ed

    Dataquick you say. Case-shiller … Real relevant stuff for SFRE professionals.
    Not by a longshot.
    Enjoy trading musings with like minded internet people.

  56. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Actually, I take that back. They are useful by a longshot.

  57. Posted by lyqwyd

    Yes, DataQuick and Case-shiller are well respected real estate information providers, who have subscribers from that own and manage millions, and billions, of dollars worth of real estate, some in San Francisco. But sure, you know better than all of them.

  58. Posted by [anon.ed]

    When it comes to the hyper local, which is what trading RE in SF usually boils down to? Damn straight I do.

  59. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Err, wait a minute. Not all the subscribers! How can I know who subscribes to what? No, the services, that’s what I meant. 😉

  60. Posted by REpornaddict

    I was around here in 2008. The talk then was all that the median figures were being hugely distorted by mix, and that prices were really down from 06, 07 etc.
    But it’s funny how everybody forgets that now its convenient to do so…

  61. Posted by nonanon

    “When it comes to the hyper local, which is what trading RE in SF usually boils down to? Damn straight I do.” -fluj 2011
    Damn straight you don’t.
    “Scare tactics are dead. San Francisco never really took a price hit and it won’t, either.” -fluj 2008

  62. Posted by [anon.ed]

    heh. In the context that was arguing with the panic in the breadlines crowd? That bit of hyperbole was mostly correct.

  63. Posted by REpornaddict

    what’s happened to thi (previously bi-monthly?) inventory updates??

  64. Posted by eddy

    @rep, good question. Seems the last one we have is July 5th.

  65. Posted by A.T.

    “Scare tactics are dead. San Francisco never really took a price hit and it won’t, either.” -fluj 2008
    “That bit of hyperbole was mostly correct.” – fluj 2011
    Hee hee, flujie. “Hyperbole” was it? Not how you described it in the very thread where you made that extremely inaccurate prediction: “Don’t tell me what I declared or didn’t declare when it is plain as day in black and white, above.”
    “Mostly correct”? Sure, if you define “mostly” as excluding the 99+% of the market demonstrating that prediction was about as wrong as one could get. But your consistency year in and year out is just outstanding!

  66. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Sure, hyperbole. You know something about that. Anyway this is a pretty interesting comment in which to dredge up that ole chestnut, (which I’ve copped to being wrong about many times over) a 2007 to now push. ha.

  67. Posted by [anon.ed]

    err “comment thread”
    What is wrong with this site these days? It always crashes, takes forever to load, and generally acts squirrelly.

  68. Posted by RenterAgain

    130 Vicksburg went for 1.35M.

  69. Posted by hangemhi

    130 Vick $155k over asking
    550 Valley (mentioned on the previous 4027 Cesar thread) $75k over asking and 10% above its 2008 sale price
    4027 Cesar Chavez – $55k over asking, and matching its 2007 sale price
    this says nothing about the overall market, but confirms that point I made in the previous thread – that this Noe Valley price range has limited inventory and anything remotely decent is selling quickly with competition.
    how bout dem apples?

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles