As we outlined a few months ago, the top-floor, junior one-bedroom “penthouse” unit #813 at 45 Bartlett Street (a.k.a. Vida, “in the heart of the bustling Mission District”), which was purchased for $695,000 in May of 2015, returned to the market priced at $688,000 in May of 2022.
Withdrawn from the market in July of 2022, the 494-square-foot corner unit with “massive VIEWS of the city” and access to a shared rooftop deck and BBQ, returned to the market re-priced at $587,000 this past September, an “asking price” which was further reduced to $549,000 after a few weeks on the market.
And having just closed escrow with a contract price of $540,000, the re-sale of 45 Bartlett Street #813 was officially “within 2 percent of asking!” according to all industry stats and aggregate metrics, such as Redfin’s “Compete Score,” but down 22.3 percent, below its 2015 value, on an apples-to-apples basis. And yes, that’s despite the fact that the widely misreported index for “San Francisco” condos values is “still up 25 percent!” over the same period of time and mortgage rates have dropped to a six-month low.
Massive “””TEMPORARY””” views of the city. Once something finally replaces the long burned down corner parcel, you will be looking at them, not the city.
The (Mission St.) corner parcel itself really isn’t the problem, it’s the Bartlett St extension of the “L” that would potentially block views; and I say “potentially” because you imply the current proposal would get built (or something even taller); given the history of that developer I’d say we have about as much chance of that happening as seeing a property sell for “officially 50 % of asking”.
Do you have some news to share about how that developer’s hearing went with the Planning Commission this past November? Seems like you’re assuming that the owner intends to actually proceed with construction. Which is, in many instances, a mistake in this city.
Even if he got an approval, he could be planning on making the entitled parcel more appealing to buyers before he flips, and that buyer could conclude that the project “doesn’t pencil out” and then sit on it for decades on end.
“Temporary” could mean a long, long time. It could easily be more than the eight years the current seller of this property lived here before that parcel is built on.
Okay, I checked myself and unless the owner somehow used a different street address, it appears that the “long burned down corner parcel” that Metroliner referred to above, which I assume is to the 2588 Mission St site, didn’t appear on the calendar for Planning Commission meetings in November at all.
$540,000 for a studio in an unsafe area: we still have a long way down.
I’d hardly call a half block from Valencia and 22nd “unsafe”.
It’s all relative isn’t it? I’ve lived in the Mission 25 years and never had an issue with crime. A week visiting in-laws in London and I witnessed a mugging in broad daylight on a high traffic sidewalk a few blocks from Bayswater station (nice area). And I was told petty and knife crime is high. Good luck finding a decent sized apartment in that neighborhood for less than $2k per sq ft.
I don’t understand Soc’s continued outrage toward the Schiller Index. Shouldn’t some of the rancor be directed at the sellers and agents who grossly misread the market?