CFAH

As we outlined earlier this year:

Purchased for $2.125 million in April of 2016, the “rarely available,” two-bedroom, two-bath condo #17E in the LUMINA tower at 338 Main Street was offered for rent at $7,000 a month in 2018.

After a year as a rental, the unit returned to the market priced at $2.4 million in May of 2019, was reduced to $2.349 million in August of 2019 and then withdrawn from the market that December.

And having been listed anew for $1.899 million [on February 9], the 1,401 square foot unit with “stunning landscape views of the bridge and city” is already in contract with an official 7 days on the market (DOM).

And while the index for Bay Area condo values is up 10.7 percent from April of 2016, and the “median sale price” is up as well, the sale of 338 Main Street #17E has closed escrow with a contract price of $1.85 million, which was “within 3 percent of asking” according to the industry stats and reports but down 12.9 percent on an apples-to-apples basis.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by soccermom

    Nothing makes SS happier than people losing money on condos and the chance to write sarcastic air quotes and snarky headlines about it.

    • Posted by SocketSite

      We realize that your mischaracterization is the only way some people can rationalize our buy-side approach and analysis, but it’s factually incorrect and we take no glee in anyone’s misfortune or loss.

      That being said, we do take great pride in having an informed reader base, at least for the most part, that embraces the data and underlying trends – be it good, bad or ugly – in order to make educated decisions, moves and investments.

      Which brings us back to the sale and economics at hand…

  2. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    I, for one, appreciate SS’s even handed approach as a useful corrective to the unvarnished cheerleading available at almost every other real estate site.

    • Posted by m2b112

      Second this. @editor much appreciated.

    • Posted by Call_Me_Ishmael

      Agreed.

    • Posted by Notcom

      I suspect one person’s “took a loss” is another’s “just became affordable”: I read that nationally house prices were up last year by mid double digits…if your income kept up with this, well, then, congratulations !!.

      Anyway, I don’t think the site has anything to apologize for in its headlines: ‘snarky’ isn’t a four-letter word. It’s wildly erratic editing practices (in deciding “off topic”), OTOH…

    • Posted by anon

      I also appreciate SS. Your realtor or the NAR certainly aren’t going to tell you anything that’s down in the market or negative about the market. The vast machinery of the NAR includes everything from always being one of the top lobbying efforts in Washington (I believer over $84 million last year), to controlling the flow of “information” and listings, ads run as “news articles”, etc. So some independent voices pointing out apples-to-apples are helpful and SS reports up apples as well. Of course, realtors get bent out of shape.

      • Posted by soccermom

        Just find any SS articles about the Lumina without air quotes or sarcastic headlines and I’ll agree.

        • Posted by wilson

          I’m not sure why you are restricting this to the Lumina, but I recall this old apple being posted a while back: “Eye-Popping Appreciation For A Modern Noe Home

          “Call it a 79 percent ($2,255,000) gain in value, effective 21 percent annual appreciation, for the modern Noe Valley home over the past three years, apples-to-apples style.”

          21% *per year* appreciation back then. And now (post-vaccine even) a 13% decline on a 5 year hold. People have these contrived and complicated rationalizations, but the simplest answer is the most likely. When people rush into places like SF (and NYC) where supply is very inelastic (hard to build more units), prices shoot up. When people leave, prices drop.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles