Purchased for $670,000 in 2005, the subsequently remodeled Bayview home at 1426 Van Dyke Avenue resold for $630,000 in 2007. And in 2012, the property was foreclosed upon and taken back by the bank.
Listed as a two-bedroom fixer, with 1,200 square feet of finished space and an unwarranted bedroom and bath on the first floor for $577,500 last year, 1426 Van Dyke sold for $490,500 last July.
Remodeled anew with granite counters and stainless steel appliances in the kitchen, the now four-bedroom, three-bath home was listed for $699,000 with 1,600 square feet of finished space, or $437 per square foot, in April.
Three weeks later, the list price was changed to $799,000.
Relisted for “$599,000” at the end of May with 1,700 square feet of finished space, the list price returned to $799,000 at the beginning of June. And on Wednesday, the sale of 1426 Van Dyke Avenue closed escrow with a reported contract price of $790,000, a mere 1.1 percent below the list price on record that morning.
But on the day the sale closed escrow, the list price for the property was changed back to $599,000. And as such, it’s officially 32 percent over asking! according to all industry stats and reports. It’s also $465 per remodeled square foot versus $558 per (pre-renovated) square foot in 2005.
Thanks SS for keeping it real.
(On a side note, I looked at the Google street view and i i personally find it a little depressing to see so many telephone wire and no street tree cover)
I have a friend that works a couple blocks from here. His is amazed that anyone is willing to pay that much to live in the neighborhood. It still has quite a few challenges.
He may be amazed, but frankly, he’s quite clueless.
Let’s see someone come up with a justification for this one.
Seems like a good outcome for the 2015 buyer/flipper. I fear the July 2016 buyer may end up more like the 2005 buyer. An amusing redfin note:
“[7/8/16] Redfin Estimate for 1426 Van Dyke
$678,272
Redfin Estimate
−$112K
since last sold for $790K on 07/06/16”
Those estimates are meaningless. Spend five minutes playing around with the comparables on RedFin or Trullia or any of the others and you’ll see the estimate move up or down by over $100K.
Something must be wrong with Zhu.
“It’s also $465 per remodeled square foot versus $558 per (pre-renovated) square foot in 2005.”
So 11 years and two remodels later and still a 17% drop in psf? That’s worth pointing out to the “SF real estate never goes down” thinkers.
I assume those are still digesting the last drop 7 years ago.
There are good decisions done with good timing, good decisions with bad timing, bad decisions with good timing and bad decisions with bad timing. As the market reward the first 3 categories, more people with little sense enter the market and many will fall into the latter. This is the 2005-2006 silly peak.
This property falls into the good timing and bad decisions. Sometimes $1 invested in a good area brings you $2 or more back. And in that case it’s probably way less than $1
Why does the MLS and/or Redfin/Zillow allow this kind of shennanighans. It’s not dissimilar to market manipulation – they are trying to convince market participants that the market is better than what it is (or at least different).
Most people buy and sell homes infrequently and don’t follow RE data regularly. So they are easily fooled by these shenanigans (What happened to tomfoolery ed?) . Both aggregate stats and stats for selling agents who would tout SP/LP as evidence of getting good deals for sellers. And the use of the median price with it’s inherently upward bias as homes get larger and nicer as time goes by….
Redfin usually shows a history of prices and price changes, so anyone can see the price changing tricks. However, aggregate studies, such as Paragon-Re’s market reports tend to show % sale prices over asking for the entire city or neighbourhoods. This is where the misrepresentations are created.
And this is precisely why days on market (DOM) is a useless statistic.