Hello out there, theFrontStep Readers! You may (or just as likely, may not) know my name from my blogs for Redfin. I’ve kindly been invited to write also for theFrontSteps, so here I am, on the steps, with my first blog.

So here’s the setting: last night, 2:00am, sultry night, people walking up from the bars, falling down, giggling. That noise doesn’t bother me much. I’d have to be a hypocrite if I tried to pretend I’ve never, after closing time, made too much noise under someone’s window as I staggered home. But another noise does bother me: some a-hole flooring his car and slamming on the breaks as he reaches the stop sign in front of my house. Then, from fully stationary, he floods the car again, tyring to go from zero to sixty instantaneously. Then he screeches off, circles the block, and comes back to do it again.

But we all live in a city. We can’t really expect quiet, can we? We can hope for it, and maybe in some areas, get it most of the time. But in the end, we’re sharing with a lot of people, some of them loud and possibly crazy. That’s why this new law aiming to curb SF noise interests me.

From the Chronicle:

The “Noise Control Ordinance” [which is already on the books, will now update] for the first time in more than three decades how the city regulates loud noise from mechanical sources like garbage trucks and ventilation systems along with bass and drum noise from nightclubs, which currently have no restrictions……The measure should be in front of the full Board of Supervisors for consideration on Nov. 4.

The current noise laws are essentially unenforceable because the original law, passed in 1973, based regulations on zoning, when there were only 19 types of zones. Today, there are more than 90, according to city leaders. The technology used to measure sound also has changed radically.

The proposed law would allow city inspectors responding to a complaint to measure the base level of ambient noise, which largely comes from traffic, and then sets limits on how much that can be exceeded by both commercial and residential sources.

Geez, SF. Get on that right after you solve the homeless crisis, the budget crisis, and also create world peace.

Still, noise pollution is a much identified problem, a source of health problems serious enough for most major cities to take action against it. Here in SF, for instance, we have Sound Pollution.org (among other such agencies). Surely then we’re better off in quiet nabes.

So where are those nabes? I live in Golden Gate Heights- pretty quiet, but not as much on 9th Ave (my street), where the #6 runs well after 2:00am and, as indicated, post bar stumblers as well as the more dangerous drivers come up regularly. Other streets though, especially those that don’t really go all the way through, are quieter.

North Beach? Um, hell no.

Pac Heights? For sure. If you read Arrian Binnings post, you know that property value really only goes up there. Couldn’t do that without the hush lots of money can buy.

Glen Park and Bernal? They’re alike in that it depends on the street. Coach A’s post on San Francisco Schtuff reminds of of the familial (and thus, pretty sedate) element Bernal offers; however, parts of Bernal and Glen Park are also close to the Freeway and BART, so not sedate at all.

Noe? Same as Bernal. Parts are very tranquil, but overall, proximity to Castro and Mission= noise.

Castro? See North Beach.

Mission? Never quiet.

Diamond Heights/Twin Peaks: pretty quiet. Pretty boring too though.

Ashbury Heights? See Pacific Heights.

Haight-Ashbury? See Mission.

Outer Sunset: Nothing but the sea, the wind, and some drunk guys around pitiful bonfire.

Tenderloin: Lots of noise, all of it scary.

Okay, you see where I’m going with this. If you don’t like noise at all, you may want to consider living in the suburbs. But if you can take a little (or a lot) your perfect neighborhood is out there. Spend a full day and a full night or two in your future nabe, maybe with the city’s new noise reading machine in hand, before you sign on a lease– or, more fatally, a mortgage.

—

Photo credit: Vicpark.com

This is Folsom street between 20th and 21st. Those of us familiar with the area were very surprised by this to say the least. The reasons for that are many, not the least of which is the fact that this is the very center of the Mission. With all that has happened, wouldn’t you think such a result unlikely?

MLS LINK here.

[Update: And we just discovered more info on Trulia].

“NAR: What the Government Takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Means to Housing Industry

In short-term, home sales should improve as mortgage rates fall

Washington, D.C. (September 8, 2008)—The federal government’s takeover of secondary mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should cause a drop in mortgage rates in the short term that benefits home buyers, but the long-term outlook is too early to call. NAR fully supports the action of the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

The federal government had no choice. The capital situation of the two companies was not enough to handle the fallout from rising mortgage defaults in the near future. In addition, investors who purchase Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debt have lost confidence in the two.

In a statement, NAR commended the Treasury’s action, announced yesterday, to bring stability and continued liquidity to the mortgage market. “The plan will help restore confidence in the secondary mortgage market,” said NAR President Richard F. Gaylord. “We appreciate the steps taken to calm the market, make mortgages more widely available and protect taxpayers. We look forward to working with the administration and Congress to ensure the continued vibrancy of the secondary mortgage market.”

Summary of what the Treasury actually did and what it means

* In the takeover, Treasury placed the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) into a conservatorship—similar to a Chapter 11 bankruptcy—which fully protects taxpayers from conflicts of interest between taxpayers and shareholders or current management.

* The federal government is authorized to take up to an 80 percent stake in the companies, will review their financial condition quarterly, and inject money into the operations as needed. That means the market for GSE securities will be treated more like Treasury obligations, which should push mortgage interest rates down. That in turn, is expected to speed up home sales and help stabilize home prices.

* The GSEs will be allowed to increase their mortgage funding over the next year and a half to help stabilize markets. Starting in 2010, the plan calls for them to reduce their portfolios.

* The heads of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been relieved of their duties. Treasury selected Herbert Allison, former Merrill Lynch vice chairman, to lead Fannie Mae, and David Moffett, former U.S. Bancorp CFO, to guide Freddie Mac.

Talking Points

* NAR, as the leading advocate for homeownership and housing issues, has closely monitored the market turmoil affecting the stock and debts of the two GSEs— Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Their mission is crucial to the economy to make fair and affordable mortgages available to home owners and home buyers. That mission must not be interrupted.

* Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play a vital role in the U.S. economy by making fair and affordable mortgage loans available for home buyers and owners. That must not be interrupted. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and James B. Lockhart III, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency that regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have issued strong statements assuring the public that credit will continue to flow over the next 12 to 18 months.

* Short term, the takeover will result in government money driving down interest rates, which is expected to spur an increase in home sales.

* Long term, the action will lead to a major reorganization of the two GSEs as privately owned models. The brunt of that work will fall to the new administration and new Congress. NAR will help shape that process and the association is already working on a plan to do that.

* The action taking by Treasury and the FHFA, which regulates GSEs, makes clear the government will not let the deteriorating conditions of the GSEs disrupt the flow of capital to the housing sector, or harm the national and international financial system.

* The GSEs guarantee more than 40 percent of the nation’s mortgages and own or guarantee more than $5 trillion in mortgages. Since the credit crunch began in August 2007, the private sector mortgage securitization market has virtually disappeared and the market share of the GSEs has jumped to about 70 percent.

* NAR will continue to follow events closely and develop recommendations on the future of the GSEs’ mission to ensure there will be a robust secondary mortgage market in all markets.

For detailed information, visit www.realtor.org/gapublic.nsf/pages/gses_conservatorship?OpenDocument.

C.A.R.: Keep Fannie, Freddie

Takeover could lead to demise of fixed-rate loans, dramatic drop in homeownership

Los Angeles (September 8, 2008)—The California Association of REALTORS® (C.A.R.) today reaffirmed its support for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their countercyclical roles, following the U.S. Department of the Treasury takeover this weekend. The government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) provide capital to the mortgage markets and promote homeownership and housing affordability.

“While the short-term impact of the Treasury’s actions over the weekend served to calm the markets and restore confidence, in the longer term these entities need to be able to fulfill their historic mission,” said C.A.R. Executive Vice President Joel Singer. “A privatized Fannie and Freddie will short-circuit the countercyclical role the GSEs have played during precarious times in real estate markets.

“Without an institutionalized mortgage-backed securities market, mortgage capital will be less predictable and more expensive, and adjustable-rate mortgages could become the standard loan for home buyers, as could higher down payment requirements,” he said. “The 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage as we know it will no longer be readily available for most home buyers and may effectively disappear. The result could be a dramatic decline in homeownership rates in California and across the nation.”

C.A.R. is concerned that the Treasury, and Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s new CEOs, will overreact and change the mission and role of the GSEs. Wall Street and investors are understandably reluctant to buy mortgage backed securities (MBS) that are not either originated from or guaranteed by Fannie or Freddie.

The GSEs hold or have securitized nearly half—roughly $5 trillion—of all mortgages in the U.S., and in the current environment with private lender constraints, they account for the vast majority of all new mortgages in California.

“We have just recently begun to see an increase in home sales, currently at nearly 490,000 units on an annualized basis, up from 284,000 in the fourth quarter of last year. The most significant, reliable source of home loans in California today are financed by either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac,” he said. “California’s and the nation’s housing markets simply cannot withstand the financial rug being pulled out from beneath them. Additionally, the repercussions this could have on the already weak economy could be devastating.”

C.A.R. is urging lawmakers to support continued government involvement in supporting the institutional secondary market and its role in creating homeownership opportunities.

“We applaud the U.S. Dept. of the Treasury for increasing the GSEs portfolio limits, but we will be asking Congress to enact legislation to ensure the two companies continue to fulfill their mission,” Singer said.

NAR: Near-Term Home Sales to Stay in Narrow Range

Washington, D.C. (September 9, 2008)—The level of home sales is expected to show little movement in the months ahead, according to the latest projections by the National Association of REALTORS®.

The Pending Home Sales Index, a forward-looking indicator based on contracts signed in July, fell 3.2 percent to 86.5 from an upwardly revised reading of 89.4 in June, which had risen 5.8 percent from May. The July index remains 6.8 percent below July 2007 when it stood at 92.8.

Lawrence Yun, NAR chief economist, said home sales continue to edge up and down. “Pending home sales are oscillating month-to-month, with the long-term trend essentially flat,” he said. “Overly stringent lending criteria imposed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the past month no doubt held back contract signings.”

Even with the latest pullback, pending home sales have been fairly stable on a national basis for nearly a year, with dramatic local market differences continuing. “Contract signings have been steaming ahead, nearly doubling in activity from a year before in several California and Florida markets,” Yun said.

The PHSI in the Midwest rose 2.8 percent to 81.6 in July but remains 2.4 percent below a year ago. In the South the index was unchanged, holding at 93.7, but is 13.4 percent below July 2007. The index in the Northeast fell 7.5 percent to 73.6 in July and is 13.2 percent below a year ago. In the West, the index dropped 10.6 percent to 90.3 but is 6.5 percent higher than July 2007.

NAR President Richard F. Gaylord, a broker with RE/MAX Real Estate Specialists in Long Beach, California, said there’s been a surge in FHA mortgage applications. “Unfortunately, many people in high-cost areas aren’t familiar with FHA programs, which is why we produced a toolkit so REALTORS®, lenders, and other real estate professionals can familiarize themselves with this increasingly valuable program,” he said.

“FHA is taking a more active role in serving a broad cross section of home buyers, but it will take some time to fully get up to speed. We’re working with regulators to improve the process, and the good news is that this is becoming a big help to first-time buyers,” Gaylord said.

Yun said there are many ambiguities in the marketplace. “The economy is producing more, yet cutting jobs. A first-time home buyer tax credit and lower interest rates on newly conforming jumbo loans favors consumers, yet buyer confidence remains low,” he said. “Even with the Treasury Department’s direct intervention in the secondary mortgage market, it is unclear if we will go back to sound normal underwriting criteria, or if it will remain overly stringent. The housing market outlook is very cloudy.”

Yun mentioned that the speed and timing of a recovery depends on local market conditions. “Based on local market fundamentals, I expect robust home price growth in places like Denver and Houston over the next two years,” Yun said. “In addition, the frequent reporting of multiple bids in California and Florida may be signaling a bottom in home prices in these areas. Nationally, home sales are stable now but are expected to increase in coming quarters.”

Looking at middle-ground assumptions, existing-home sales are projected to total 5.01 million this year before rising 6.9 percent in 2009 to 5.35 million. After declining an average of 4 to 7 percent this year, home prices are forecast to rise by 2 to 4 percent next year.

The 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, which also has been moving up and down, should trend up to 6.6 percent by the end of this year, edging up to 6.7 percent in 2009. NAR’s housing affordability index is likely to remain favorable throughout 2008, averaging 13 percentage points higher than last year.”

Not sure where it is? Walk outside your door, ask the first person you see, “How do I get to the Mission District,” make your way there, and experience everything else along the way. If you still can’t find it, use this map and look for where district 9c (Inner Mission) meets 5m (Mission Dolores), and you’ll be close.

Since this is a San Francisco real estate blog you’re probably wondering what the market is like there, so here are the comps for the past year. Enjoy and go check it out.

[Update: Since we're getting a fair bit of link traffic coming in for this post, you should all know we've had a few Battle Royales in the past and this one is quickly becoming one itself, so we've tagged it to go along with the others.]

Two weekends ago I visited an open house tic unit at 1298 Treat Street in the Mission. It’s a very contentious situation. The developer is trying to Ellis Act several elderly tenants, and some family members and tenant groups were peacefully protesting outside the open house.

I drove by the building this morning on my way to a meeting, and I saw that the building was scorched! It certainly looked suspiciously like arson, and the report [here] suggests the same.

I think that this is an unfortunate situation that we sometimes have in SF. On one hand the developer wants to maximize his property’s value by converting to tic’s. But on the other hand, evicting seniors in their 80′s or 90′s is morally reprehensible. I’m totally for property rights, as I own several buildings in the city, and am actively involved in their development, but i must say that I had sympathy for the tenants in this situation, and spent time talking to them and the tenant activists who were there that day.

I just don’t know what led to this case of possible arson. I highly doubt any of the people I met that day were involved. Could it be some silent angry activist, who wants to use destruction as a way to get back at ‘the system?’ I remember a similar case last year on 23rd street, between Treat and Folsom (across the park), where there was some violence. These immature and illegal acts certainly do not help the people adversely affected by the evictions. It is so asinine to act as a spoiler with these types of destruction. And it certainly fans the flame (no pun intended) of animosity between property owners/developers and tenants.

It’s too bad this city cannot collectively get it’s act together and find ways to mitigate the housing problems that we have. What’s next, drive by shootings at open houses? [We hope not!]

-Arson suspected in San Francisco Fire [KTVU]

-1298 Treat Street [sfnewsletter listing detail page]

Some quotes:

Construction set to begin in November 2008

Open for business in August 2009 for Phase 1, close the existing Transbay Terminal (note that Golden Gate Transit and SamTrans will still use the Mission Street semi-circle driveway off Mission)

Phase 2 completion in October 2009 will move Golden Gate Transit and SamTrans over to the temporary terminal area following the removal of the eastern Transbay Terminal ramp from the Beale/Howard corner of the site

New Transbay Transit Center building is scheduled for completion and the temporary terminal is scheduled to be closed in January 2014

The Redevelopment Agency will develop mixed use retail/housing (most likely affordable, BMR rentals from what I’ve heard) on the Temporary Transbay Terminal land along with a park (yeah!!! We must make sure the park comes to fruition by staying engaged in this process as a neighborhood!). The mixed use development will tentatively happen along Howard Street and along Folsom Street with the park in the middle of the two strips of buildings.

-Transbay Terminal [theFrontSteps]

-Temporary Transbay Terminal Meeting Notes [Rinconhillsf.org]

Take your automotive fantasies, render them in metal and leather, and hand you the keys to a stable [read: large choice] of exquisitely prepared high performance luxury cars to enjoy at your leisure. From the inimitable refinement of an Aston Martin to the visceral driving experience of a Lamborghini; from the unrivaled heritage of a Porsche to the rarefied status of a Ferrari…

DRIV relieves you of the burdens of outright ownership.

And we say it is a phenomenal concept for luxury high rise living, and a great concept in general. Why wouldn’t a new development jump all over this? Parking is limited, many owners are only in town once or twice a year, and it could very well be something that puts a buyer over the top when deciding between two buildings. Why bother buying a new Porsche for your new pad, when a company like this can get you there cheaper and easier?

Bets on how long before One Rincon, Millenium, Infinity, St. Regis, or any of the others wise up to this idea?

Our bet: too long.

[Update: Trumped already. {Removed per request} has already purchased 20 memberships from this very club. (More on the Trump thing later.)]

-Millennium Tower, Going Up [theFrontSteps]

-DRIV [website]

p.s. For the record, we know the idea of a “luxury car club” is hardly new, but San Francisco has yet to adopt this in new developments. Sydney, Vancouver, and other cities have. Please, correct us if we are wrong. And no, City Car Share, free Vespas, and ZipCar don’t count.

“After a six-year entitlement battle, the Mid-Market apartment owner is gearing up to break ground on phase one of what will eventually be a 1,900-apartment complex on a windswept stretch of Market Street…

Trinity has hired Cannon Construction to build the massive San Francisco project, which was designed by the Miami-based Arquitectonica, the firm behind Tishman Speyer’s Infinity complex on Rincon Hill.

The complex was approved on April 10, after years of negotiations between Trinity developer Angelo Sangiacomo, rent control advocates, current Trinity tenants, and District 6 Supervisor Chris Daly.

The first phase of construction, some 440 units on the Mission Street side of the property, includes 360 “replacement” studios to house the rent-control tenants now living in the Trinity rental complex. The remaining 80 units will feature one-bedrooms: 68 market-rate and 12 below-market rate. The address of the first building will be 1188 Mission St.

… shoring and excavation will begin shortly and take the project into 2008 when the “pile and foundation program” will start. Trinity officials estimate that it will take two years to finish the first phase and move existing tenants over.

In all, the project will include four phases. After 1188 Mission St. is completed, the next building will be 545 units on Market Street, which will include 21,000 square feet of retail space and a large public plaza allowing pedestrians to pass through from Mission to Market Street.

The final building phase will add 915 units and include a building along Eighth Street and another west of the 1188 Mission St. structure.”

How is all this Bay Area development going to impact our housing market? With so much gloom in the headlines, you’d have to think these guys are nuts. We beg to differ.

-Massive Excavation to Begin at Trinity Plaza [San Francisco Business Times, J.K. Dineen]

-Arquitectonica

-Tishman Speyer

-Trinity Deal Hits a Snag [sfgate...source of building photo]

The first article, is a totally regressive neo-socialist diatribe (predictably, from the sf bay guardian) on, get this, how Google’s shuttle bus is bad for the Mission district!

SF Bay Guardian Article

The second article, from the sf weekly blogs, is a roundabout response, from leading urban historian Joel Kotkin, who has interesting insights.

SF Weekly Article

I think these two articles make for an interesting juxtaposition on how SF is changing. Clearly the writer for the guardian article is bitter, and in my opinion, hypocritical. He claims to have moved to SF 8 years ago, excuse me? That’s like 1999, the height of the dot com boom!?! Also, the endless whiners from some circles of SF’s loony-left need to understand that ‘cool, hip’ artists that came to the mission in the early 90′s were merely a precursor for gentrification.

These artists are partly responsible for displacing working class Latin Americans, who previously displaced Irish families, who… it’s so counterproductive to blame different ethnic and demographic groups for how you don’t like the changes. Get over it! No place stays the same; no one is entitled with permanence to live forever in the mission or anywhere else for that matter. But, will they ever learn?

p.s. Be sure to read the comments at the end of the sfbg article- they rightly ream this guy a new a$$hole. But of course, sfbg will not have the balls to reprint any of these critical responses in the next ‘pulp’ issue.

God, am i the only one who reads the crap-guardian during lunch breaks to get my weekly laughs (as god only knows, sfbg takes its preposterous self so seriously.)

Very interesting take on the matter, and thanks for sending it in.

If you’ve got something to share, please don’t hesitate to contact us. Your opinions, contributions, tips, secrets, and lies are valuable and appreciated.

In the spirit of keeping tabs on San Francisco’s green housing inventory, it seems only logical to draw attention to a green 2 unit TIC in the Mission: 1303 Alabama. The main unit is being retained by the owners. The second unit is a 1,200 SqFt home. The project is the result of a collaboration between Sunset Magazine and Meridian Builders and Developers Inc. and was designed to “take the magazine’s Idea House Program into a dense urban area for the first time, and demonstrate how to maximize construction on a compact site.” Interesting.

I got to preview the 2 bedroom 2.5 bath two Sundays ago during the Build It Green San Francisco Home Tour.

In terms of green building features, the house gets a high score: solar PV, recycled glass tiles, reclaimed wood floors, double insulated windows, dual flush toilets, rooftop garden, and the first residential windmill in the city (On a 1-year variance to see how the birdies fair with spinning blades.)

The unit is on the market for $1,089,000.

How long will it be before someone swoops in on this green baby? Wagers, anyone?

[Editor's notes: It'd be fun to see what "A" and "M" think it will sell for. I know "A" is reading, but what about "M". And WTF is up with the MLS photos of this place! You'd think better quality would be demanded of the agent.]

-Info on the Sunset Idea House

-1303 Alabama [MLS]

In every market there are properties that can be obtained for below market value – many that have a strong upside. Here are two we’ve been watching for a few weeks. Our sense is these are available at or below asking and are both strong investment opportunities.

3479 Sacramento St – List Price – $1,075,000

2 bed / 1.25 bath + bonus room down. Parking and outdoor space and on the market for 90 days. Good location – slightly busier than the typical Presidio Heights location – but surrounded by boutique shops and cafés. Well under the average price per sqft in Presidio Ht’s. I imagine there is a willingness to negotiate the price if other terms of the offer are strong. The unit doesn’t show well at all. It’s dark and could use some upgrades. That said, nothing needs to be done so you can owner occupy while you renovate. New kitchen and bath / upgrade lighting / repaint the façade / research the inclusion of bonus room via interior stairs. With basic upgrades this unit should sell for $1.15+ – if you can include the downstairs rooms you are looking at $1.35+.

2080 3rd St # 8 – List Price – $649,000

Property has seen several price reductions from original price of $689,000.  Top floor unit with walk out deck with expansive views in smaller building. If purchased for 635K the loft becomes a great investment. Can serve as a nice rental / income property – approximate rental rate is $2500/ month. There are several new projects going in on 3rd St which will bring additional owners and businesses. The Mission Bay campus continues to grow and several new businesses have recently opened along the 3rd St corridor. This area will continue to mature and a deeded top floor deck with views will be a commodity people are willing to pay money to obtain.

I will be tracking these properties for our readers, and I am open for any discussions regarding the two, and/or my opinion on their investment value.

-2080 3rd St # 8 – List Price – $649,000 [mls]

-3479 Sacramento St – List Price – $1,075,000 [mls]

“Check this out.

56B Woodward, which is on the boundary between western SoMa and the Mission is all of about 280 square feet and they want $245k. The studio apt looks to me like a cruise ship cabin, being on the bottom floor, with views looking up to street level through the smallish front window. The floors are faux wood overlay (there’s a name for this that begins with a p, but I can’t think of it [we gotcha...Parquet...pergo]). Otherwise, it is an entirely unremarkable redo [would have to agree with you here]. It has been reduced once since being listed in January [originally $279,000].

I know this is San Francisco, but to me this property is absurdly priced with no parking and no extra storage [both are leased nearby, but where to put your shoes is the real question], and being a mere 7 feet wide and roughly 35 feet long. That’s over $800 a square foot. I would love to meet the chump [we're rolling with this word, but prefer a kinder approach] who finally buys this place and interview him. The first question would be what he does for a living, and the second question would be whether he ever thought at his salary/career level he would be living in a closet.

D.W.”

We’d have to agree this is quite the place. Of course, if this doesn’t work for you, you could buy any of the other 6 TICs in the building…scratch that, 56 just went into contract and 54A is pending. So apparently this new price is creating some interest.

-56B Woodward [mls]

-6 TICs on Woodward [mls]

Our problem with relying on zip code data for median prices and market trends in San Francisco is the fact that the zip code doesn’t necessarily jive with the neighborhood and common type of property being purchased in those areas.  Examples: 94115 is Pacific Heights, but it also includes Lower Pacific Heights and the Western Addition; 94110 is the Mission, but also Bernal Heights; 94121 is Central and Outer Richmond, but also Sea Cliff.  See where we’re going with this?  

Regardless, here are some cool “real time” graphs you might find interesting as well. (Graphs are only for Single Family Residences.)

Innner Richmond, Laurel/Presidio Heights

Central/Outer Richmond, Sea Cliff

Marina/Cow Hollow

Parkside

Pacific Heights, Lower Pacific Heights, Western Addition

Mission, Bernal Heights,

Noe Valley, Corona Heights, Duboce Triangle

Mission Bay/Potrero Hill/SOMA, South Beach

South Beach, SOMA, Financial District

If you’d like your zip charted, contact us.

-Your chance at fame…or missed fortune [sfn BLOG]
-More Stats & Numbers [sfn BLOG]
[image sources: Data Quick; and Altos Research]

As answered by Mary Fenton, of Sotheby’s International Realty www.marylaughlinfenton.com

If you want to buy and hold, I think that is a great area as it is going
to be the hub of great scientific activity. The area attracts young and
older buyers who are downsizing and moving into the city, and commuters
who want to be close to the freeways. Mission Bay should be a great
thriving area within the next 5-10 years.

Mary