Purchased for $1.450 million in August of 2019, the updated but not “white-boxed,” two-bedroom, two-bath Lake District unit at 4504 California Street returned to the market priced at $1.395 million two months ago.

Featuring a remodeled kitchen and baths with renovated period details throughout, top-floor flat in the six (6) unit Tenancy in Common (TIC) building measures 1,616 square feet, with high ceilings, large scale rooms and both south and east exposure for great natural light, all a few blocks from California and Clement street shops, cafes, restaurants, a farmer’s market and “the best green space[s] in SF.”

And having been reduced to $1.295 million, or roughly $801 per square foot, last month, the resale of 4505 California Street has just officially closed escrow with an “at asking!” sale price according to all industry stats and aggregate market reports but was down 10.7 percent on an apples-to-apples basis, below its 2019 value and net of the pandemic-era squeeze.

18 thoughts on “Classic Lake District TIC Trades Down”
  1. I moved out of the city over a decade ago and EVERYONE I talk to or listen to when the words “San Francisco” are brought up have the same (or worse) reply: “oh they’re having a lot of problems now”
    Yes a lot of these problems are overblown by the fake news right wing echo chamber, but most of them exist.
    Surely this horrible PR is affecting the city’s desirability and real estate values?

    1. I don’t think it’s horrible PR, it’s more due to the fact interest rates have been hovering around 7% since early ’22 and buyers simply can’t afford as much.

    2. The decline in The City’s desirability and real estate values is overdetermined. The simple fact is that the local market was overheated prior to the pandemic, and people (other than those flippers, developers, and other hangers-on who have arrived here from elsewhere to make their fortune in the S.F. real estate “game”) began fleeing high prices; the subsequent WFH impact amplified this phenomenon.
      Part of me is hoping that Ellen Lee Zhou wins the next Mayoral election. Four or so years down the line people can point to what happened after her administration has had its agenda in place, and real estate values keep on declining in a fairly predictable fashion afterwards, and we then have hard evidence that the political affiliation of municipal elected officials doesn’t have as much to do with real estate values as the talkers on Fox Business would have you believe.

    3. NYC is having similar problems with chain drug store thefts/closures, but their problems don’t seem to get as much exposure. National media loves to pile-onto San Francisco.

      1. Perhaps, but wasn’t it preceded by a century-and-three-quarters of fawning, or a least overplayed, positive coverage ? Everything from Sam Brannan’s drunken romp to Madison Bumgarner’s bro-hug have been spun to demonstrate that the city City was a world unto itself. That might have made sense in previous lives, when it recovered from a number of financial and natural catastrophes, and it offered a relief from over-starched mid-America, but in recent decades it’s been most notable for the ability to suck up Federal dollar$, and latching onto nearby (Wine Country, Silicon Valley) riches.

        1. Only 10 states receive less federal money per person than california (namelink). Some receive *much* more. I would imagine that the same relationship holds true comparing san francisco to other cities.
          The “relief from overstarched mid-America” that you mention is why many of us live here and still think it is a great place.

          1. Thank you; but what really caught my eye was this This is mostly because California, with its high population of high-income earners, pays more in federal taxes per person
            And I’m with you in imagining SF’s relationship with other cites, and I think this rather makes my point: why is one of the wealthiest cities in the country getting back even a fraction of what it pays to the Fed’s, since such spending is ostensibly to serve the whole country (doesn’t the city City benefit from a naval base in another state or an interstate highway in another part of California? How does the Central Subway benefit a North Dakotan?) So the fact that Robin Hood is giving back to the same rich, nine-tenths of the schillings he took from them, seems more like redistributive in</b?justice.

      2. Comparing SF to NYC is like comparing a packet of ramen to a Michelin starred dinner. I was just in NYC. That’s a whole other level of existence. A world class city like NYC has so much going on that it can absorb quite a lot of fail and still largely succeed. The sidewalks were cleaner there, the green space more abundant, the 24 hour life still thriving… SF by comparison is like a wannabe YouTube mini-celeb whos all shagged out after a years-long, messy bender. We could have built a city for people to enjoy but all we got was more traffic deaths, filthy sidewalks, bumpy streets, empty storefronts, and worst of all, no vision from the self-promoting career political class who have been running the city into the ground since Ed Lee.

          1. sockettome, thanks for the link, but c’mon. The population of New York City (nowadays) is over 8 million, the population of San Francisco is under 809,000. ‘James’ isn’t talking about the gritier parts of NYC. Even though he doesn’t say so, he’s clearly talking about just the borough of Manhattan (population about 1.6 million) where the fancy people live, the invocation of “world class city” notwithstanding. He also probably isn’t too concerned about chain drug store thefts and the subsequent store closures blamed on those thefts, but the prevalence of homeless people on the “filthy sidewalks”.

          2. It is a pretty broad generalization. The nature of a city is change – sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.

            If you visit SF’s fancy neighborhoods “the sidewalks are cleaner, the green space more abundant” too.

            However, the rest of James comment “SF by comparison is like a wannabe YouTube mini-celeb” is precisely accurate. Aching to be a “World Class” city is one of San Francisco’s failures of recent decades. It’s like aching to have a designer handbag.

            Being itself was much better.

          3. Surely Brahma knows I’m upset about SF’s management’s pathological habit of lying about the things that other cities actually act on. Somerville, Cambridge, and Boston MA have been actively rolling out modern traffic calming for several years with even more aggressive plans going forward. And SF spends a fortune hurting homeless and poor people while spending another half-fortune trying to help them with half-assed remedies that are 80% marketing.

            As for NYC, I can’t think of any area in SF that compares favorably to Manhattan for the mix of livability, walking, managed traffic (the streets are narrow) and amenities. That easily can be said about Brooklyn and huge swathes of the Bronx as well. I don’t talk much about Queens and don’t acknowledge Staten Island.

          4. Surely Brahma knows I’m upset about SF’s management’s pathological habit of lying about the things that other cities actually act on. Somerville, Cambridge, and Boston MA have been actively rolling out modern traffic calming for several years with even more aggressive plans going forward. And SF spends a fortune hurting homeless and poor people while spending another half-fortune trying to help them with half-assed remedies that are 80% marketing.

            As for NYC, I can’t think of any area in SF that compares favorably to Manhattan for the mix of livability, walking, managed traffic (the streets are narrow) and amenities. That easily can be said about Brooklyn and huge swathes of the Bronx as well. I don’t talk much about Queens and don’t acknowledge Staten Island.

          5. Brahma, I was simply making a statement about the dangers of broad generalizations. Citys rise and fall. The second half of James comment is right on. The vanity of “the self-promoting career political class” to make San Francisco into a “world class” city is actually the problem and contributing to its decline.

          6. James, thanks for confirming that your previous screed wasn’t about the “filthy sidewalks” or the abundance of green space at all, but rather an expression of your displeasure with the visibility of the homeless in S.F., that’s makes this discussion a lot clearer.

    4. It’s not just bad press. SF is a horribly managed city.

      Yes, I live here. I walk every day and ride transit. I see the bullshit press coverage, but also recognize that our infrastructure and city services are absolutely a neglected, corrupt mess thanks to the closed pipeline that keeps the same class of politics strivers in charge permanently.

Leave a Reply

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