Did we just write that? A Classic Noe Valley Edwardian, Renovated, yet reduced? We did indeed.
It turns out $1,495,000 isn’t the best price for 3774 23rd Street. This 3 bed, 2.5 bath 1561 square foot home has a laundry list of new amenities, including “new foundation with steel & full seismic upgrades” (what constitutes “full seismic upgrades” is up for debate), and the price was just reduced to $1,450,000.
Just throwing it out there…
Since you’re probably wondering, last sale 2001 for $675,000 (asking $499,500) as a total fixer.
–3774 23rd Street [sfnewsletter listing detail page]
Early morning price slashing? Where is the huckster car salesman?
i remember looking at this place in ’01. we called it “the serial killer house” and fully expected to find a room full of bizarre newspaper clippings and satanic graffiti. one realtor was walking around the open with her shirt pulled up over her nose, saying, “you’ve got to have vision.” i guess someone did.
That is not an “extensive” renovation, is it? More like a 3/4 renovation. They probably should have gone for dormers and opened up the floorplan too. Then it would have been a ~$1.6 M house. Despite the price reduction, they’re still asking $928 a foot.
Has TFS finally capitulated? Did they just blog about a reduced priced property?. Sign of a bottom?
Similar stuff is posted all the time on here, Michael.
why is your response here always so defensive and arrogant?
[Editor’s note: Pick a name UrbanSF7, JamieLynn, Duggo]
It isn’t.
well. whatever boy.
since you got kicked off one of the other sites, you found a home to spew your stupidity and racist comments.
shame on you.
Stupidity. OK, fine. I’m not stupid but fine. Think what you want.
Racist? LOL. The race card. Apropos of nothing whatsoever, you play the race card. As an anonymous poster. whatever.
Dude, all I did was call someone out by name. Similar stuff — as in properties languishing, properties getting reduced in price — IS talked about on here frequently.
Why you got mad, or called me arrogant for that, is unknonw. Clearly I was right.
The market in NV in the past month is *bad*.
It’s now as bad as post 9/11, there are very few buyers and a sudden increase in inventory at $1.2-$1.6 which is really hurting.
I see rapid price declines, sellers are panicking to get out before no one buys.
This is just a reflection of the huge uncertainty in the stock market
Recent financial events are hitting HARD.
coupled with Alt-A resets, expect declines of 20-40% across the city, if not 30-50%
anyone thing this wont now be the case?
Do the math, I’ll bite. Do the math for us. Why 20 to 40? Why 30 to 50? I’ve even read Robert Shiller say 10 percent from peak. And “across the city” ?
I agree that we will see declines in many areas. We already are. Properties in many parts of town are already priced five percent down from peak, selling for a point or two under. Like THE MAN says tho, a scalpel, not a hatchet. And why 20, 30, 40 or 50? Some areas have changed irrevocably.
I also don’t think institutions will necessarily let Alt-A resets run the disastrous course that many have predicted. That, coupled with San Franciscans’ better than average capital resources, should be factored.
Well, firstly because using the dataquick numbers (which we know are not perfect, but the best we have) SF medians are already down 11.8% YOY and 13.2% from peak of May 2007.
And my prediction that the price falls we have seen are going to speed up – either way, we are already over 10%.
Also, the recent equity crash has hit peoples downpayments hard – at a time when the % of a downpayment needed to qualify for a loan has increased peoples available downpayments are shrinking.
Also, linked to this, market confidence. people dont believe that ‘prices only go up in SF’ anymore. They once did. The new line is price falls will only be minimal – why should we believe this now?
buyers are holding back, sellers are realising if they dont sell now the house will be worth even less in a year. inventory is increasing – d5 included.
Alt-A will not be the watershed that subprime loans were, but the better than average capital resources you mentioned are shrinking.
I am interested that Shiller said 10% from peak only – what’s the source, and when did he say it? A prediction a few years ago is old news now – even from Shiller. The rules have changed.
The median price is already down over 10% from peak and falling.
I doubt Shiller was factoring in the recent catastophic events in the financial sector.
The resets will be a factor.
Declines have been huge elsewhere, certainly on the scale of 30-40%. I don’t think SF is immune, far from it given the problems in the financial and software industries (share price collapse, tech layoffs, google share price..).
As with every real estate cycle affordability eventually returns. That would suggest on the order of a 30-40% haircut in most SF real estate values; depending strongly on the median income of the particular part of the city.
The problem is with what’s been going on in the markets lately there are so many layoffs that the median income is also going down, suggesting even larger median house price declines. (40-50% seems like a good place to start)
I don’t think so. I concede that real estate goes in cycles, and that economists have historical frames from which they can view for asset bubbles. What is more difficult is ascribing this to a changing city. You are not going to see a stick Victorian in the Valencia corridor go from ~$1.6M to 800 or 900K. Better infrastructure shifted south over the past decade. I don’t think that’s really arguable.
In order for a massive correction I think tech needs to really get slammed first. Then a period of neglect needs to occur, such as what happened to SF in the mid ’70s. But I don’t think big tech is going to get hurt too bad. There’s too much growth nation demand. That is not to say that Google copy editors will continue to be able to purchase $1M Noe Valley TICs. They probably won’t.
Remember although that the SF median price is down 13.2% from its peak already (as measured by dataquick – which we know isnt perfect, but the best we have).
And prices are falling not rising right now.
Peoples downpaymets are shrinking at a time when they need a higher % of the price to qualify for a loan – hence prices must fall, and significantly.
I think market confidence has hugely shifted as well. The common refrain of “SF real estate only goes up” – no one believes that now. Now its declines will only be 5-10% why should that be believed either, especially when the citywide median price is already down over 13%.
First, median has a lot to do with D10 SFR sales and SOMA condos. We could go around and around on that, but know that of the 373 SFRs sold in the past two months, 87 were in D10. And YoY prices are down 25% in 10.
Second I disagree that that was the refrain. (And please, use quotations when you quote somebody. That practice belongs on another site that shall remain nameless.) There is an old saying tho, and it is this one: Longterm, real estate only goes up.
My thing is active appreciation. Adding value. I’ve said it many times. But betting on static appreciation, just hanging out and watching your home’s value soar month after month, or year after year? By and large people who experienced that sort of appreciation over short terms were lucky.
I don’t dispute that the market has shifted. What I’m disputing is a call for such steep correction. People calling for affordability. Where do people get the numbers? Rent is the city’s model. Not ownership. Whoever said that real estate in desirable cities needs to be affordable to X amount of residents? 150-200X rent models, that sort of thing? Says who? This city has changed in the last 10 years.
Again, look south. The concentration of wealth is no longer entirely north of California. We see $2M Noe Valley sales routinely. They didn’t even exist five years ago. We see young women jogging in the Mission with Ipods at night. Believe me that that did not occur five or six years ago.
It isn’t all just credit bubble. Cities change. Economies shift. Workforces respond accordingly. So when people try to cry 40 or 50 % I can’t help but cry foul. I do not dispute that more properties are dumped onto the MLS every Friday. It’s 120 as of today (not all SF, but you get the picture.) Nor do I dispute that 20% down, the absence of affordable jumbos, pricey second mortgages, the disappearance of HELOCs will all take a toll.
But view it in context. The context is that it is all neighborhood by neighborhood, house by house. A terrific $2.5M house with unilateral appeal will still sell in Noe. The same house cost 1.8M six years ago. I could shift the numbers and talk about Potrero, or Bernal, or even the Mission …
actyually fluj, one thng I meant to ask but didn’t – when you said Shiller said there would only be a 10% drop in SF – what’s the source for that. in particular interested to know when he said it, assuming it was before the recent financial implosion – and probab;y before it became much harder to qualifty for a loan – again, quotations when you quote someone, please.
I attributed that stat to a person I identified by name, bro. Jeez. Do you really not understand the difference between that and namelessly affixing quotations around something? Surely you do. How could you not, when here you are dissecting me? What’s your name on the other site? I bet I know.
Just Google “Shiller 2008 10% San Francisco,” you’ll see. I think it was this summer when I first read that on another site that shall remain nameless.
dothemath. There is another factor.
The drop – if and where and when there is one – is NOT an absolute drop to count, but a reative drop to the “normal” expected behavior.
example: if every march (compare to the past 3, 7 or 15years) sees a price increase of 2-5% compared to the month of january of the same year, if march 2009 sees an increase of only 1%, there is a drop.
The same way, if every november sees a price decrease of 1-2% compared to september prices, if november 2008 sees a decrease of only 0.5%, there is actually NO drop, it could even be considered a “raise”, or a “strong seller’s market”.
There are economical cycles, and NORMAL raises and drops occur in SEASONS, ELECTIONS, WAR, etc. Those changes, however sharp they are, are part of the normal behavior, with an automatic correction following. And long term, the prices always go up, for NO other reason that inflation. (adjusted prices however can go anywhere, and will depend on the nature of the investment [location, depreciation or improvement, etc]) (and if the feds keep the printing presses full speed, that means hyperinflation, which means that realestate prices will eventually go up in digits [if not in value]. The price is then counted in hens and pigs such as “the house costs the price of 1000 cows”, and if the cow price doubles in paper value, the house price doubles in paper money, but not in real value. Why am I typing this? Is there here anybody so dumb as to not understand basic inflation???)
What is interesting now and here is if there will be a drop, slow of increase or anything that WONT correct itself in the next year(s). And guess what? nobody can predict this. Only the analysts in 10years will be able to look back and see if the change was part of the normal course, or if it was an historical event.
Compare to stock market. What’s happening IS an historical event. Autocorrection of the market (in 4 weeks, in 1year or in 10 years) can’t undo some of the changes and losses. Part of it being that the impact is worldwide.
So before you say doom and gloom, sell all your SF properties to camp in your 60s Airstream in a now deserted strawberry field, think Big Picture.
If you need to buy, buy. If you need to sell, sell. If you want to marry, get married. If you want kids, have kids. If you die, well, we’ll miss you and hope you will have lived a happy life till the end. That’s called “real life” as opposed to speculation in FantasyLand which is lethal to 95% of it’s players.
Fluj, sorry that google search didn’t bring anything up.
I am really interested to see the source though, can you provide?
I do know Shiller said this about SF
“RS: Somehow, San Francisco has gotten the idea it’s very special. I’ve always been a skeptic to how special the place really is The knee jerk reaction is that San Francisco is a very special place. San Francisco may be a classic example of people thinking they’re too special.”
http://www.bigbuilderonline.com/Industry-news.asp?articleID=638634
It was his company, MacroMarkets, predicting a ~7% futures depreciation. There’s a video too somewhere I think.
“”I do know Shiller said this about SF
“RS: Somehow, San Francisco has gotten the idea it’s very special. I’ve always been a skeptic to how special the place really is The knee jerk reaction is that San Francisco is a very special place. San Francisco may be a classic example of people thinking they’re too special.”””
I don’t know Shiller personally, but I think he’s the one who doesn’t get it. San Francisco is a special place for SanFranciscans. San Franciscans are clowns who are oblivious to reality, and who thrive in a like-minded community, thus attracting more San Franciscans and pushing away wannabees who can’t adapt. The major aspect of reality that is ignored by SanFranciscans is the fact that there are sitting on a bomb which WILL explose with 100% certainty – and they don’t care, and they just live “carpe diem”. (very different from Mississippi or Texas, and “odds that the hurricane will avoid us”)
San Franciscans are not hippies, they are not Santa Cruzans. It’s not about risks, presence of or lack of, or ignorance of. It’s about a lifestyle.
True SanFranciscans are found all around the world, and once they settle here, they wouldn’t leave the city for anything. Even if that means putting kids in public school, even it that means selling the Infinity or Acura for a Mini Cooper or a Smart, even if that means having homelesses around the corner, even if ….
If each election’s result in SF is so cliche, it’s not because it’s San Francisco, thus they must vote black or white. It’s the other way around. They are San Franciscans BECAUSE they live this way, and vote that way, and feel great living among peers.
And unless the city is totalled by the next Big One, there will always been a presence and an influx of new freaks who’d live here at any cost, whereas it’s philosophical, religious, political, nutritional, musical, or whatever. And for the past 160+ past years, there has been no dent on that spirit. No earthquake, no prohibition, no war, nothing would shake the city long term and flip it over.
Denying this would be just the same as if the mayor of Paris decided overnight to stop any fashion and clothing activity in the city. Can’t happen. Won’t happen. Couldn’t even be done. Too much momentum.
Sophie,
I didnt say the city will flip over.
I just said I thought there would be siginificant price declines citywide, which has already started to happen – and seems to be accelerating.
“San Franciscans are clowns who are oblivious to reality”. unfortunately, so were the banks lending practices and its hitting everyone hard, sf included.
i think it’s shiller who has somehow gotten the idea that he, and his rather limited statistical models, are very special.
I agree with Sophie. I moved to the Bay Area from Sydney in ’93. When I sold my .com in ’99 I could have returned to Aus and enjoyed retirement, but I’m still here working and loving it. This city attracts and (at least for the most part) keeps a disproportionate number of people who have a much better than average ability to create wealth. Hence…higher home prices.
I also agree with fluj – you can’t compare neighborhoods without understanding how much they’ve changed and the momentum continues. For instance a dozen blocks of Divisadero will be ‘greened’ in the spring, and in a couple of years the DMV will be replaced with a modern building. The change is accelerating…