Purchased for $1,515,000 in August 2005, it was a plugged-in tipster that noted the sale of 226 Caselli for $1,420,500 back in November 2007.
Having been slightly updated since, 226 Caselli Avenue returned to the market this past June listed for $1,399,000 at which point our plugged-in tipster weighed back in:
We are still real estate bears. In fact, we do not think the market has hit the bottom yet…which makes me happy that we still have jobs which will keep us in San Francisco for at least the next ten years.
In spite of being real estate bears, we still love being homeowners and are (embarrassingly so) completely in love with our house. [And] we are still huge fans of SocketSite.
Thanks for keeping it real…even back in 2007, when it wasn’t fashionable to do so!
Yesterday, the resale of 226 Caselli closed escrow with a reported contract price of $1,350,000, down 5% ($70,500) from its 2007 sale, 11% ($165,000) below 2005.
∙ Single-Family Apples To Apples (And A Reader’s Perspective) [SocketSite]
∙ Apples To Apples To Apples (And Tipster To Tipster) On Caselli [SocketSite]
Interesting that the 2005 listing states 2050 for square footage, omitted from the 2007 listing and disclosed at 1712 psf. It would seem the status of the lower level is highly questionable in terms of qualified living space. The 2005 buyers overlooked it and paid top dollar for that space. The 2007 sellers failed to disclose square footage to avoid any legal issues and seemingly took an appropriate ding on price. The 2011 sellers appear to have come to terms with the this square footage issues and the new buyers paid a hefty 788/psf which would seem a bit high for Eureka Valley, but maybe someone with more information could chime in here as I’m not really sure. The 2005 buyers paid 739/psf. Each uses the respective listed sq/ft
So, what does this mean? It means that buyers will overlook issues like questionable sq ft in a hot market. And weaker markets will expose all.
I’d love to see some other comps / metrics from this area during these times to see how a home without questionable metrics stacked up.
“What does this mean?” Well, we’ve now seen two owners in a row of a very nice SFR in an excellent neighborhood take $100,000+ (w/ commissions) losses. The recent sellers should breathe a big sigh of relief they got out this well. One might take heart that this is “not as bad as Antioch” in terms of percentage losses, but it’s probably about the same in terms of actual dollars flushed down the toilet.
Nice place though – I’m sure the new buyers will enjoy it.
Eddy is pretty much spot on.
2005 1/1 – 8/18 — 47 sales $745 psqft
2007 1/1 – 8/18 — 45 sales $806 psqft
2011 1/1 – 8/18 — 40 sales $698 psqft
One might take heart that this is “not as bad as Antioch” in terms of percentage losses, but it’s probably about the same in terms of actual dollars flushed down the toilet.
Good point. Another way to look at it is an hypothetical Antioch seller probably saw his net worth going from something to zero, while someone in SF with this kind of house probably had a good pile of chips to begin with and and probably still has.
What this means is Caselli is one of the nicest streets in one of the more desirable areas of one of the greatest cities. The village is a short walk away, and yet does not intrude.
@eddy
“The 2005 buyers overlooked it and paid top dollar for that space. The 2007 sellers failed to disclose square footage to avoid any legal issues and seemingly took an appropriate ding on price.”
Do you know this for a fact, or are you proposing a hypothetical explanation?
Not a fact; but the fact pattern strongly suggests this to be the case. I’ve seen this situation a few times before. And kudos to the 2011 agent and seller who most likely disclosed the real square footage.
Cool, seems like a reasonable theory, just wanted to make sure I wasn’t misunderstanding.
Thanks.