Purchased for $2.6 million in late 2014, the two-level, 2,215-square-foot Mission District condo at 859 Alabama Street, which “epitomizes sophisticated San Francisco city living and [offered] a rare opportunity to own an architecturally significant home,” returned to the market listed for $2.75 million in early 2016 and ended up selling for $2.695 million in November of 2017, representing total appreciation of just 3.7 percent for the three-bedroom, three-and-a-half-bath home over those three years on an apples-to-apples basis.

Touting “modern luxury in the heart of the Mission,” with a private elevator from the ground floor to the unit’s two top floors, high-end finishes throughout, and over 1,000 square feet of private outdoor space, including a heated balcony off the home’s great room and a roof deck with panoramic views, 859 Alabama Street returned to the market priced at $2.795 million last month, a sale at which would have represented total appreciation of just 3.7 percent from the fourth quarter of 2017 and a price at which the condo has just been relisted without having yet sold.

If you think you know the market for modern units in the Mission, now’s the time to tell. Keep in mind that the widely misrepresented Case-Shiller index for condo values in “San Francisco” is up 20 percent from November of 2017 and 46 percent higher than in the fourth quarter of 2014, as we noted yesterday as well.

28 thoughts on “If You Think You Know the Mission, Now’s the Time to Tell”
  1. This is a single family house. No need to refer to the elevator as “private”. It is also three levels, not two.

    1. It’s a two level condo. On record. Been listed for 19 days. Was removed from market for Labor Day, but is back and active now. It’s the top unit. Location is O-K. I personally like the west side of Mission.

  2. I really like this unit and it’s a great location and great layout — 20th St has great bars and restaurants these days. The challenge I think is that it’s a large, luxurious condo and at a similar price point you could get a slightly smaller and less lux single family home — many people, myself included, would prefer not to have to deal with a condo neighbor.

      1. Classic fauxgressive gaslighting statement. It’s not class warfare to build a house. This neighborhood has always been all over the place in terms of who lives in it. It’s what makes it special. The only people that don’t accept that are incorrigible trolls like the Calle 24 crowd. Who btw inherited their homes from their parents and trash talk people who made their own way. It’s all the height of absurdity.

        1. The history of the Mission over the last twenty years is largely class war waged through real estate. With the exception of explicitly affordable housing, if you work in Mission real estate, intentionally or not you are engaging in class warfare.

          1. Second and third generation families moving away, and emptying and selling their familial buildings, when they understand all too well who rents there isn’t a thing in your world huh?

          2. Not a little over dramatic? Maybe?

            Sure, some more wealthy people have moved in. The same thing has happened in neighborhoods, towns and cities all over the world. If this is “class war”, then the term is essentially meaningless.

  3. There is a similar wood facing on a residential building in the Mission on Linda St near 18th. Since it was built about 10-12 years ago the wood has needed to be refinished at least twice and in between those refinishing jobs the finish really deteriorated quickly. To the point between one job the wood grayed. Harsh western exposure in both cases.

    1. A few years ago there was a water intrusion problem with this building and the facade had to be mostly stripped down and rebuilt. This is always going to be a problem with square buildings that lack eaves. Seems like putting aesthetics over functionality.

    2. Is it really wood? What kind of wood is it? If so, it will need to be refinished, stained, and resealed every 5 or so years? Perhaps the better weather resistant material would be a wood grain ceramic tile.

  4. The facade is very 2014 and now looks dated; additionally the Mission as a neighborhood has fallen significantly down the pecking order in San Francisco since the pandemic. With rising interest rates, I’m going for $2.4MM or withdrawn from the market altogether.

    1. Agree on most points but the Mission stands as a neighborhood on its own merits for many folks for whom “the pecking order” mindset found in the traditionally desirable neighborhoods is a turnoff.

      Any proper city needs many melting pot neighborhoods if it wants to attract the more interesting sorts of people. Some (many?) of them have money and might like this particular place.

      Front facade could use an interesting mural though.

      1. People want diversity but also care about their personal safety. Lots of people have left the neighborhood as a result.

        Lets not even talk about the s-show that has become the 24th & 16th St BART stations, guaranteeing a steady stream of interesting individuals…

  5. In the future these places will be relics from a peak time of speculative assets. Shoddy construction and design already touched on in multiple comments. The only reason they appeared in the Mission (there are a few) was because 1) cheaper property and land due to somewhat unpalatable nature of the neighborhood (to many…) and 2) less affluent and more immigrant community at a disadvantage to resist displacement.

    These buildings are from a time when complete gentrification and displacement seemed inevitable … yet each of these few examples stands alone on a block a decade later. Word on the street is if kids mention ‘mission’ these days it’s Mission Bay or a different city altogether…

    And it’s pretty clear that being 10x or more richer than everyone on the block is not that person’s sweet spot of ‘diversity’.

    1. You don’t know what you’re talking about whatsoever. To the point of comedy, really. Start by Google earthing the block and its surrounding, and counting the number of contemporary or sharply remodeled facades. I’ll leave the “Mission” take wrt the kids, and the economic sleuthing alone.

      1. Beg your pardon, I am going to revisit this actually. I’ve nothing to do with this property. But when people come on here and try to posit takes such as “Shoddy construction and design already touched on in multiple comments” ?

        no. That’s not what occurred. Someone touched upon flat facades often encountering water issues. Someone else touched upon this sort of wood fading. That’s all. You’ve no grounds to make such a dismissive.

    2. Who is cross-shopping the Mission and Mission Bay? MB is nice but very boring with little to do after you’ve been there a while.

Leave a Reply

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