Amen! How ’bout a surf cam on your roof, or better yet, just shoot us a tip when the surf is good and nobody else knows it.

Thanks for the comment and thanks for reading!

alex (the editor)

I think the abundance of halfway houses and slackers (w/ no money) at

the beach has kept Outer Sunset prices low. Oh and there is the poor

quality construction and the weather that corrodes metal in a few days.

do not tell me sunset has gotten cheaper. Ok, I won’t. June,’05 $800,000

May, “08 $625,000.

markets that started in 1972,1979,1989 and 2005

Mate … I question that. For real. From where I’m sitting the outer Sunset has kinda done its own thing. Great Highway 48th Ave on to like 45th or so. At some point in the last few that has become more desirable. (Ducks head explosions occur.)

Sorry mate. I don’t know why. My own theory is down to surfing … the internet has made surfing accessible and it wasn’t before. Man. hate if you want. That’s my take. But do not tell me the outer Sunset has gotten cheaper. Because every single person who lives there will tell you that’s a lie.

8th and kirkham is another.It has been tested and proved in the down

markets that started in 1972,1979,1989 and 2005: You need a shotgun to

sell that lo-quality trash west of 37th avenue.

You said, “OK, so we would expect to see a drop in volume in 2005, and then a leveling off in volume. Instead the volume keeps dropping. What’s happening? Do you have any theories?”

Yeah, I do. List price has continued to climb. This has given buyers pause.

I picked 700 because obviously lots of houses were to be had sub 700 back in 2004. (And somehow sub 700K seems to scream “great deal” in this town.)

But as to sub 700 … another one sold yesterday, 1986 31st Avenue. It sold for under asking. The property actually started at 685K, was reduced two weeks later to 665K, and got into contract within two weeks. It sold for 650K. It’s sort of typical. 1040 sq ft plus probably another 150-200 in an unwarranted 1br 1 ba down, and it needs updating throughout.

So that’s 650K for a cosmetic fixer, pretty deep in the Sunset, 31st and Pacheco.

Let’s bear that in mind and look at 2004. The 65 properties sold for under 650K in ’04 average 1140 square feet … that’s 100 feet larger, and you know, most houses out there do have some sort of extra space down as well. Whether it’s a larger garage or some sort of apartment or what have you that’s a pretty standard Sunset house feature.

Anyway, I said “relative strength.” Not to seize on one property too much but 31st and Pacheco for 650K and sweat equity needed — that’s sort of a typical deal these days. And it ain’t cheap.

The thing that I can’t understand is, why would these condos price at almost $650/sqft when SFRs are priced at around $570/sqft?

OK, so we would expect to see a drop in volume in 2005, and then a leveling off in volume. Instead the volume keeps dropping. What’s happening? Do you have any theories?

Another point: without upgrades we would expect to see the PSF rise as the value of the homes rise. If a 1000 sq ft home sells for $500k, then that’s 500 per square foot. If the same home sells for $750k, then we are at $750k per sq foot. But the PSF is not keeping up: between the lowest priced year in your sample (2004) and your highest priced year (2007) we saw prices increase 25%, but the price per square foot only increased 16%.

2008 has seen 24/135 sub 700K sales, 2007 18/148, 2006 22/163, 2005 15/176, and 2004 94/187.

So no, that’s not fair to say. 2004 was its own animal entirely and very distinct from 2005-2008 in all ways. The number of sub 700K sales so far this year looks most similar to 2006.

Sub 700 homes represented as a percentages of sales:

2004: 50%

2005: 8%

2006: 13%

2007: 12%

2008: 17%

So, according to your figures, we are seeing a greater percentage of homes sell below $700k then anytime since 2004.

But where I get my “SFH in the Sunset returning to 2004/2005 prices” is by simply looking at the list prices of homes in 2004 selling for less then $800k, which I did here.

Here’s the key quote:

“Among homes showing a prior sale price, anybody selling a Sunset home purchased within the past five years is showing negative appreciation.”

Paco to answer your question, assuming you are thinking I’m a bear and assuming I was one of the people you were referring to, I am not only a potential buyer, I wrote an offer last week (it was a foreclosure, I didn’t get it, I actually lost out to a *lower* bidder thanks to an outstanding counteroffer from the bank….) .

Anyways, I’m not trying to spin the data, or be a “bear” and sell anybody on anything one way or the other. I don’t want to even buy in the Sunset, I’m looking in the North Bay right now (school district reasons). Nor am I saying the market is “tanking”" in the Sunset.

I’m just saying “strength” is not a word I would use to describe the market in the Sunset right now, or at least that’s what I am getting from the data. Your mileage may vary.

if the conventional wisdom is correct (real estate is crashing!) then you would expect it to be easier to buy something cheap. and even though crappy condos in soma grand are falling in price they are still going for close to a half million bucks…which is not cheap.

so my question is this- are the bears actually potential buyers or just pundits? i would think buyers would be telling stories about lowball offers and success with that…