Thanks to Misha Weidman for the below chart illustrating the difference between San Francisco values as a whole, and those areas he describes as the “core districts” (excludes districts 3 and 10). He will post this to his site soon, with additional commentary, for now, you get the first look at the chart:
and Misha’s brief commentary that came with:
You can see that the results track each other very closely. However, I believe that the chart also confirms that “core areas” have held their values longer and better than the city as a whole, since roughly July 07.
Not sure that core areas “hold” their values longer. If that’s the case the “drop” from the peak in the red line should happen a few months after a drop from the peak in the blue line. But according to the graph, in the latest drop from the peak, redline starts first, by what appears to be 3 months.
What it does say is if you exclude D3,10, the median price for SFR is higher.
Yes, anon8mizer,but what I meant was “core area” values have not fallen back as far chronologically as “all district” values — they’re about 5 months to the good. It’s also interesting to note that the divergence in median values favoring “core areas” that started in roughly April 07 doesn’t appear to have been sucked out of “core area” values (yet?).
Frankly, what I find just as interesting is in fact how closely sales prices in the “core areas” — I’ve got to find a better term! — track the ups and downs of the broader market. To me, that suggests that the “all district” median is a good enough barometer of the San Francisco market as a whole. In future charts, I intend to plot specific areas against the “all district” median, sort of like tracking a particular stock against the S&P 500.
another thing to keep in mind when tracking median prices: since the ‘recession’ the lower end properties have been selling much better than the higher end. hence the drop in median is also accounted for by the sales mix (more low end sales) and does not necesarily reflect the average value of a home in SF (but rather, the average recent sales price.)
So the “good” districts really have performed nearly identically to the “bad” districts during the bubble and during the crash to date. So much for the conventional wisdom holding that the crash has been isolated to just a couple small areas.
No, good districts have not shed 20 to 30 % in value like D10 and parts of D3. I don’t care a whit what this chart says.
“No, good districts have not shed 20 to 30 % in value like D10 and parts of D3. I don’t care a whit what this chart says.”
Clearly – as long as you’re referring back to 2004 prices. Or are you just counting D7?
Seriously, you take enough heat elsewhere that I’m not eager to pile on, but would you like to offer some explanation/context of the differences of what this chart shows and your comment?
I think only parts of D4 and parts of D9 have taken that sort of hit for premier properties. I think that lending standards have caused the lower end of the spectrum type properties to have much greater volume at the bottom part of each district. This affects mix and this chart’s nature, greatly. The top end has not seen that drastic a shift. The reason for that is because by and large either properties get removed from the market, or they are reduced by a smaller percentage. If the latter, typically it takes a while, but then it sells. That’s my opinion of what’s occurring, Mikey.
Oh, and the above is with regard to the chart’s fall 2007 highpoint depiction.
Well done on the Bankling award.
Clearly my own australian real estate blogs are lagging behind when I see such a professional and eye catching one as The Front Steps ( great name by the way )
Andrew. Australia
Yo fluuj,
so we all understand, could you give us examples
of what a “lower end of spectrum type property”
is?
For this very expensive city, I’d say sub 1M would be the answer. I just looked at some numbers for Districts 5-9, for example. There have been 103 sub 1M condos/TICs sold since March 1 in those areas. That’s a decent chunk of the total volume moving. There were also 22 SFRs sold sub 1M in those areas. If you consider that there were exactly 120 condos sold total during the past month and a half, and 43 SFRs, you can get a sense of the trend, and what it might be doing to mix.