Comments on: San Francisco’s Core Districts VS. San Francisco As A Whole (Avg. & Median Price Chart)

By: fluj

fluj — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:36:17 +0000

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.

By: ntnthnchrill

ntnthnchrill — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:58:14 +0000

Yo fluuj,

so we all understand, could you give us examples
of what a “lower end of spectrum type property”
is?

By: real estate

real estate — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 01:38:54 +0000

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

By: fluj

fluj — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:23:10 +0000

Oh, and the above is with regard to the chart’s fall 2007 highpoint depiction.

By: fluj

fluj — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:15:18 +0000

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.

By: Mikey

Mikey — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 22:40:16 +0000

“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?

By: fluj

fluj — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 21:52:35 +0000

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.

By: anon

anon — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:31:36 +0000

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.

By: 45yo hipster

45yo hipster — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 06:11:25 +0000

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.)

By: misha weidman

misha weidman — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:05:11 +0000

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.