716 Sanchez
This past March we first published the following report from a house hunting reader moving to San Francisco:

On February 28, 716 Sanchez Street hit the market with a list of $2.45M for the 2100 sqft house. That comes to a whopping $1187/sqft which is way out of whack with both comps and listing in the neighborhood.

When I checked back on March 2, the listing had been “updated”. The only change was that the number of square feet was removed! I suppose that’s one way to make the place look more reasonably priced.

As we noted at the time, the fully renovated 716 Sanchez had first been listed for sale in 2008 asking $2,650,000 ($1,262 per square foot) having been purchased for $1,175,000 in 2003 as a much less modern 1,250 square foot home.
While we took a bit of heat for running the piece (“The price per square foot for this house is not “out of wack” [and this] posting should be immediately removed.”), following our report, the list price for 716 Sanchez was reduced a few times, last asking $1,999,000.
And last week, the sale of 716 Sanchez officially closed escrow with a reported contract price of $1,900,000 (and an unreported price per square foot of $905).
Price Per Square Foot Out Of Whack? Reduce Remove It… [SocketSite]
And Then Reduce It Too… [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by sfrenegade

    That’s much closer to the supposed comps that “truth” on the prior thread suggested:
    3616 21st was $929/sqft.
    3715 22nd was $672/sqft.
    3664 22nd was listed at $865/sqft.
    This house was never going to be 849 Sanchez.

  2. Posted by tipster

    So they suffered through a remodel and addition, and walked away with a hair less than they paid for the purchase, expansion and remodel on a 2003 buy. Not too shabby in this market.

  3. Posted by [anon.ed]

    You don’t have the credentials to evaluate remodel expenditures, Tipster.

  4. Posted by FormerAptBroker

    tipster wrote:
    > So they suffered through a remodel and
    > addition, and walked away with a hair
    > less than they paid for the purchase,
    > expansion and remodel on a 2003 buy.
    Then [anon.ed] wrote:
    > You don’t have the credentials to
    > evaluate remodel expenditures, Tipster.
    What “credentials” do you feel a person needs to have to estimate the cost of remodeling and adding 850 sf to a home. Do you need to be an architect? a contractor?, an architect that is also a contractor and a Realtor ®???

  5. Posted by anon.ed

    No. Just some experience. Of course, not having a looooooooong track record of rampant exaggeration — blatantly intended to falsely illustrate failure — when it comes to this very thing, would be nice. Along with actual real life experience.

  6. Posted by tipster

    Why so glum, anon.ed, lots of 2003 buyers are losing money on their purchases.
    Here’s one in Russian Hill, and though the realtor’s “Beautifully remodeled” comment may be a bit of a stretch (but what realtor’s comment isn’t?) the purchase for 750K doesn’t look like it’s going to be realized after transaction fees, even if it sells for $799 after its whopping 3% price cut.
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/875-Filbert-St-94133/home/861362
    Over in North Panhandle, another 2003 loser. If it sells at asking, after its massive, massive 1.5% price reduction, the 2003 buyer loses money.
    Here’s one that sold for just over half its prior sale price. Oh wait, scratch that, 2005 buy, not 2003. My bad.
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/1177-California-St-94108/unit-302/home/1267872
    All over the city, 2003 buyers are losing money. The loss for this house is really not that unusual.

  7. Posted by tipster

    Whoops, forgot the link to the North Panhandle money losing 2003 buy:
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/2001-Mcallister-St-94118/unit-126/home/12399018

  8. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Glum. heh. I don’t have any feeling at all over here, other than amusement. Now I’m supposed to look at links to a TIC and a condo in another area? Why? You don’t know what you’re talking about other than what you’ve gleaned from the words of people who actually have experience doing things, on Socketsite. And you’ll even turn that on its ear and ramp up every cost because, well, because you enjoy acting like that on the internet. It’s worth precisely a chuckle.

  9. Posted by around1905

    Regarding remodelling costs…. actually with experience you really can ballpark the numbers. For a reasonably nice gut-remodel in SF, if you are very careful and OK with mid-range quality, you can push it down to around $225/sf; if you are careful an want top-level finishes, more like $350-$450/sf.
    This place is towards the lower end so figure on $450K for the remodel, plus or minus 100K…

  10. Posted by tipster

    ^They added square footage, which will cost more than a remodel.

  11. Posted by [anon.ed]

    “^They added square footage, which will cost more than a remodel.”
    Again, you have no business saying that.

  12. Posted by around1905

    I got my numbers for price/sf from the past few years of the AIA home tour. It kind of surprised me that overall new build and a total gut remodels were not terribly different in price per sf, but when you add it all up it more-or-less makes sense.
    Of course, every property has unique issues which might move the numbers, but ballpark for well-run projects is surprisingly consistent in SF….

  13. Posted by mktwatcher

    Anon and Tipster – You are my Itchy and Scratchy and I adore you for it. Don’t ever change.

  14. Posted by What a Punk

    We should all ignore the anonymous cheerleading realtor clown known as [anon.ed].
    God, what a boarish oaf and what a perfect representation of the real estate “profession.”
    He doesn’t even have the courage or ability to show us the numbers that supposedly refute Tipster–he’s merely throwing poop at Tipster. He’s got nothing so he would rather focus attention on Tipster than the substance of the matter.
    What is it genius? How much did this remodel cost? Show us the numbers, punk.

  15. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Reel it in if you want me to teach you things. I’ll pass this time.

  16. Posted by Plugged-in Tipster

    First: I feel validated for having written to SocketSite about this one. The asking price was $2.45M and it sold for $1.9M, so I’m pretty sure the price (per sqft) was indeed out of whack. Thanks for the follow up post SocketSite!
    Second: The remodel was planned by the previous owner and much of the construction and remodel was completed before the sellers purchased the property. They continued with the same architect to complete the final touches, but it was 80% complete before they purchased it (according to the owner’s BF, also a realtor). According to the SF permits office, the owner spent no more than $50K in remodels on the place subsequently, add a bit more for new carpets if you like, but all told they still put in under $200K themselves.
    While the owner didn’t get the huge profit he originally sought, he isn’t hurting one bit from this transaction. Also, since the price was brought down to $1.99M just before it went into contract, the list-to-sale of this property is a complete farce. The moral I take: ignore list prices, find appropriate comps, ignore advice from agents (ours suggested an offer of 2.3M before we fired her) and read SocketSite.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles