438 Roosevelt in 2010 (

Purchased for $2,275,000 in 2002 and unsuccessfully listed for $2,995,000 in 2007 and $2,295,000 in 2010, the contemporary Corona Heights home at 438 Roosevelt sold last week with a reported contract price of $2,300,000 having been listed for $2,499,000.

438 Roosevelt Interior

Call it an actual apples-to-apples gain of 1.1 percent for the “dramatic and sexy home” since 2002 versus the 0.96 percent gain in the Case-Shiller Index for San Francisco over the same time period, or the 12.9 percent gain in the Index for the top third of homes in the San Francisco MSA or the 22.2 percent gain in the San Francisco Prestige Index.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by anon

    Argh. How many times do we have to point this out? CASE SHILLER IS NOT JUST SAN FRANCISCO BUT THE MSA! So San Francisco proper must have done, er, not as well as the case shiller SF area . . .

  2. Posted by shza

    The usual socketsite bullish bias….

  3. Posted by fixie landbaron

    Socketsite bullish bias?

  4. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    Everybody realizes that the Case-Shiller index values are for the entire MSA, not just S.F..
    That’s why folks on socketsite commonly use “the top third of homes in the San Francisco MSA” as a proxy for an index that just covered S.F. proper.

  5. Posted by Repornaddict

    Not sure what the point is here..this house doesn’t form part of the prestige index……unless its to point out that prestige houses have outperformed ones like this…..
    [Editor’s Note: While the average value of houses in the Prestige Index is $2.67 million, the Index is for “San Francisco” homes valued at more than $1 million, of which this house would be one.]

  6. Posted by REpornaddict

    I think the number of bathrooms will exclude it from the index..
    “The First Republic Prestige Home Index™ is the first statistical model of its kind customized to measure changes in homes valued at more than $1 million in key California urban markets. Some common features of luxury homes in the Index: 3,000 to 6,000 square feet, three to six bedrooms, and three to six bathrooms

  7. Posted by sparky*b

    This place is a 2 bedroom, 2 1/2 bath. I never noticed that. Seems limiting on the price, I wonder if there was ever a time it would get much more in that neighborhood with only 2 beds (let alone 12 years post remodel).

  8. Posted by Rillion

    Wait, so individual data points may vary from the average value reported by a index? Shocking! Someone should nominate this theory for a nobel prize or something.

  9. Posted by lyqwyd

    REp, I don’t read that to mean the house must meet those qualifications, otherwise houses with more than 6 beds or bathrooms would also be excluded, which I doubt is the case.

  10. Posted by REpornaddict

    REp, I don’t read that to mean the house must meet those qualifications, otherwise houses with more than 6 beds or bathrooms would also be excluded, which I doubt is the case.
    Take your point about 6+ bedrooms, but surely there has to be a minumum number of brdrms and bathrooms – otherwise 1 bed, 1 bath houses would also be inthe index. a “common feature” reads to me that all houses in the index have 3-6.
    so this house would not form part of the index, and the comparison with the Prestige Index here is misleading.

  11. Posted by shza

    Socketsite bullish bias?
    Didn’t think I needed to call out the fact that I was joking.

  12. Posted by lyqwyd

    I can’t find any hard description of the criteria, but I find it unlikely that it’s a hard cuttoff on the size or beds or baths. Would a 2900 sf 2 bed 2 bath condo for $5 million be rejected?
    It’s clear the minimum is $1 million, but is that even luxury anymore?
    I take the bed/bath & size numbers to be a description of what most the of properties are like, not as a requirement for inclusion in the index, but that’s just my interpretation.

  13. Posted by R

    “common features of…homes in the Index”
    That seems pretty clear, no?

  14. Posted by lyqwyd

    Common can mean all members, or most members. It is an ambiguous term, therefore it is not clear what the meaning is in this case.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles