Comments on: Various Updates (Alhambra, Sea Cliff, 22nd, Sacramento, Douglass, 27th, and more)

By: Pete

Pete — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:54:00 +0000

2679 is back, and priced up $15,000 from last time. The only obvious change (I walk by this place every day) is that they repainted the front door. Personally, I think it’s a great deal.

By: lily

lily — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 22:15:47 +0000

i agree with kenny in the sense that lowball offers could be made when houses are priced too high to correct the markup. but for whatever reason, i don’t consider those lowball offers. to me, a lowball offer is one in which the price is reasonable and still you get it under asking…i just don’t see that happening in sf..not yet at least.

By: kenny

kenny — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 21:58:02 +0000

It is occasionally possible to pick up properties for under the asking price, though. Even in the best of markets things fall through the cracks because they are mispriced and/or badly marketed. What if someone had tried to make a run at the 2679 Sacramento property for $1.4 last week? Would they have really scoffed at such an offer? Because that’s about what the property is worth.

By: HQ

HQ — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 21:52:56 +0000

Everybody believes that they are in a better financial position than themselves. People like to laugh at others. But, i’m sure everybody on here is in fine financial position.

By: bogusaurus

bogusaurus — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:43:10 +0000

‘lowball’ is like defining ‘bubble’. I think the last time one could make a below-asking offer that the seller would entertain (i.e. respond to and negotiate), would have been the last time single offers were typical.

Would that have been 1993?

That was the towards the end of the S&L / RTC real estate garage sale, which convinced many people to avoid real estate. Even SF real estate had been drifting down a couple of years previous.

By: kenny

kenny — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:52:13 +0000

What’s “lowball” though? A few percentage points under, if something is lingering? Seriously, what constitutes a “lowball” offer?

By: HQ

HQ — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:39:15 +0000

Would love a low ball opportunity in District 7. Doesn’t hurt to try i.e. the Sacramento property, offer like $1mil or $1.1 mil.

By: james

james — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:19:44 +0000

nobody is going to take a lowball offer in this town. they’ll just pull them off the market for 2 years until we have a much friendlier market for sellers, vis-a-vis financing of their buyers, etc.

you are just wasting your time and insulting the seller by trying.

By: lily

lily — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:31:19 +0000

has there ever been a fantastic opportunity to lowball in sf? i’m still waiting….

as for the green condos in the mission. i actually checked them out. i was expecting a little more detail, highend sparkle and a little less generic. the top floor penthouse had amazing views but i wasn’t all that impressed with the actually units.

the best part of the green condos was that there was a big sign hanging from the building across the street that basically said “get out of here you rich people” with a bit more obscenity to it. i wouldn’t want to live across from such blatant unwelcome but obviously the people buying the units don’t mind.

By: Pete

Pete — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 03:34:03 +0000

2679 Sacramento was withdrawn from the market today.

[Editor's note: Thanks Pete and Eddy (via email) for the update on Sacramento!]

By: Boomtime

Boomtime — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 02:52:25 +0000

Kenny – don’t quite understand your comparison, but I think I get the drift.

I don’t know why one would spend $3mil in lower PH, when you can get something pretty nice for $3mil in Pac Heights (north of California), and farther away from the slums.

At any rate, it’ll be interesting to see how the market in 4Q, when things get rough for sellers. Let’s see how desperate those listing in 4Q will be. Could be another fantastic opportunity to low ball.

By: kenny

kenny — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 01:59:48 +0000

Of course it’s unjust. America is unjust. That is the nature of the beast. The rich always have and always will get richer in this country.

What’s interesting to me now that I see it from the inside is how people who buy a 3Million house in Lower Pacific Heights don’t strike me as different in any way from people who buy in Bernal because that’s the only somewhat central area they can afford. Honestly. Not the way they speak. Not their social graces, schools attended, not even the type of cars they drive. Nothing. Some people just got it good. That’s America for you.

By: Boomtime

Boomtime — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 01:03:33 +0000

Thanks for the updates Alex!

Does anybody find it ‘unjust’ that it takes money to buy in the Tier 1 locations, and that it is the Tier 1 locations that keep going higher, or at least staying steady. Whereas the other locations are just getting pounded i.e. on a relative basis, the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer? Or, the middle class just gets further and further behind? Thoughts anyone?

It’s kinda like buying a Ferrari. A Ferrari is in high demand with limited supply, you could probably sell the car for more or the same a year or so from now vs. a Ford explorer that’ll depreciate 7-8K on you/yr guaranteed. Or, better example is fine art.