Purchased for $1.515 million in September of 2015, the upgraded 1,400-square-foot Yerba Buena Loft unit #523 at 855 Folsom Street, which features a private 400-square-foot terrace and “one of the area’s most sought after addresses,” returned to the market priced at $1.595 million last July, a resale at which would have represented total appreciation of just 5.3 percent for the unit since the third quarter of 2015 on an apples-to-apples basis.
Reduced to $1.495 million, withdrawn from the MLS in September and then re-listed anew with an “original list price” of $1.45 million in January, the re-sale of 855 Folsom Street #523 closed escrow with only “36 days on the market” and an “at asking” sale price of $1.45 million, at least according to all industry stats and aggregate reports, in February, a re-sale which represented a 4.3 percent drop in value for the condo on an apples-to-apples basis since the third quarter of 2015.
Two months ago, the two-bedroom unit suddenly returned to the market with a $1.537 million price tag.
And the re-re-sale of 855 Folsom Street #523 has now closed escrow, and the property has been marked-to-market for the second time this year, this time with a contract price of $1.465 million. And yes, that’s “up 1 percent” ($15K) over the past four months but under its 2015 price on an apples-to-apples versus “median price” or indexed basis, this time by 3.3 percent.
“one of the area’s most sought after addresses”? Yeah right. With permanent tele-work in place for many companies the potential pool of buyers for these SF condo properties is shrinking and will continue to shrink. For $1.465 million one can get a quite nice home with land in Sonoma and Napa counties – to name two areas seeing a hot real estate market right now.
Despite some fluff pieces in the press and industry hype, the price per square foot was actually down in Sonoma and flat in Napa over the past quarter and first half of the year.
Bosh! Don’t quote facts in the face of Dave’s eternal gloom and doom. Why is he no longer “Dave in Seattle” I wonder? Did the constant drizzle, banal modern development, and festering homeless camps combine with a stagnating economy get to him finally?
I will agree that this is hardly a primo address. And a very…focused…architectural expression that will not be everyone’s cup of tea.
“Permanent telework” would be a great euphemism for a reduction in hours and/or pay. Time will tell.
I think we can all agree that the people who are relying on income from their job to pay for a home in the $1.4 million range have the labor-market bargaining power to not have to worry too much about their employer reducing their work hours and/or pay if they move out of S.F. and work remotely. They are “exempt” from the FLSA.
And for these workers, even if they did take a modest pay cut in exchange for working remotely, if they sell a home in The City, take the proceeds and move to Sonoma and Napa county to purchase a home there, they’d most likely still come out ahead in terms of net worth.
“Permanent telework” is also a great euphemism for not spending two weeks on a ventilator and/or having your lungs look like swiss cheese.
Except for the international orange flooring on the deck, the place looks like prison chic. The bare cement look reminds me what I envisioned as a slum apartment in Clockwork Orange or a pre-1991 Soviet tenement. So, I am not surprised that it traded lower. I also agree with the previous comments that permanent tele-work will shrink the market as people realize they can live anywhere.
Is this your first brush with the Stanley Saitowitz aesthetic? His concrete condos are distributed throughout the city.
Great that is has a dedicated patio, I like the tall ceiling in the front and location, but also totally agree with the bare concrete ceiling pre 1991Soviet tenament prison chic comment on aesthetics.
It’s not a home, it reads as a soulless rectilinear box for existing. I’m always amazed at how much people will pay for places that have so little design….
Seems odd that it would go up in value over the last four months, but then again it’s a sample size of one.
While a single unit, with two quick sales within 1 percent of each other, the condo appears to have been accurately marked-to-market at a sub 2015 price. Of course, there are other recent “sample sizes of one” in the same building (and even more elsewhere as well).
Very surprised that Covid didn’t effect the price.
Why would someone have held this for only 3 months and pay the transaction costs? Looks like no upgrades made in that time.
There have certainly been some pretty big economic dislocations recently, don’t you think?
There are so many reasons someone could decide to quickly sell when we are looking at a pandemic for the next couple of years. Job loss leading to sale, job no longer tied to city leading to move, empty nester offloading pied a Terre because suddenly there’s no amenity in the city any longer. There are so many potential reasons.
Also, anyone thinking the medium term prospects for cities aren’t good might decide to offload this quick in order to avoid a worse result down the road.