October 7, 2008
The Crocker Highlands area has a lot of homes on the market right now: I counted seventeen on Redfin. You can search for them either by typing in Crocker Highlands in the search box (although some are only listed as “Crocker”) or just by honing in on the area of the map of Oakland with the arrow compass. Here are a couple of factoids:
(Second) Best Bang for Your Buck: While not the absolute cheapest per square foot for the whole area (for that see 1272 Bates Rd. listed below at $218 per square foot) at $300 per square foot 684 Walavista Ave. is some pretty nice bang for your buck. I mean, it’s not often you find a 4bd/3ba home in Oakland that was built before the 1980’s. Due to the large number of beds and baths as well as the drawing pictured in the thumbnail, I thought at first that the home was new construction. However, the description states it was built in 1922.
Least Days On Market: 1615 Trestle Glen Rd. (pictured above) and 1272 Bates Rd. have both been on the market for six days and both appear to be English Tudor style (although the Bates home is listed as “Mediterranean”; but the photo looks more like a Tudor). However, the similarities end there: the Trestle Glen home has roughly 600 square feet less than Bates, is nearly twice the price and has almost three times more lot space.
Most Days On Market: At 132 DOM and 122 DOM respectively, 1131 Excelsior Ave. and 812 Creed Rd. take the cake for longevity on the market. While the Excelsior home may be having trouble due to proximity to the highway (see Oakland: Great Deals I Wish I Had Waited For) it’s unclear why the 3bd/2ba at 812 Creed is taking a while to move. This home was originally priced at $799,000 in March of 2008 and is now down 200k to $599,000. Any thoughts on what’s up (or rather, er, down) with this one?
October 7, 2008
This town has a lot going on right now, and it’s hard to keep up with it all. Retail real estate seems to be booming and walking the length of downtown, I only found a couple of storefronts for lease. San Carlos has worked hard, like its neighbor Redwood City, to redevelop the downtown and revitalize business. The Thursday night Farmer’s Market is always hopping, no matter the weather, and mid-day, midweek traffic is a constant stream. I’d call that success.
I’m not sure what happened, but in the last 35 years, San Carlos has chewed up and spit out a lot of grocery stores, which is a great revenue loss for the city. When I was growing up there was a grocery at Laurel and Eaton, one where the current Rite Aid store is located, one across from the post office, Foodville at the end of San Carlos, with another mom-and-pop store almost directly across the street (where Chocolate Mousse now resides). And at one point a Safeway was located where the current Longs Drug Store is on San Carlos Avenue. Foodville is the lone survivor from that crowd, and the oldest market in downtown. (Trader Joes being the only other market, located off Belmont and El Camino.) Owned by the Bianchini’s, who also have a market in Portola Valley, Foodville is slated to move into the old Bell/Lunardis spot across from the post office. The move will mean larger quarters, more shelf space, and a new name. Foodville will join its sister store in becoming Bianchini’s Market. While I am sure that many will miss the old store for its convenience, that building was badly in need of repair and updating and my guess is that the renovation would have cost too much, in money and in lost revenue. I’m looking forward to seeing them in their new spot (below).
Also on the horizon are three new eating establishments (like San Carlos really needs more!). On the west side of Laurel between Cherry and Olive, a new wine bar is being created. The Cask, located next to Cowabunga Creamery at 782 Laurel, will be a sister to Spasso, just across the street. Spasso features some great tapas and probably one of the best lavender crème brulees that I have ever had. The owners are diversifying and trying their hand at offering something for the after-dinner crowd. On the east side of Laurel, in the same block, the former crepe restaurant is being completely transformed into something very Asian. The
design, bamboo plantings, and serving dishes sitting in plain sight gave away its intention, but no sign tells us what exactly it will be. Guess we’ll just have to wait and see. Finally, Red Mango is opening up a storefront by Starbucks, on Laurel between Olive and Arroyo (see photo right). This frozen yogurt chain offers all-natural yogurt, with no artificial anything. This will make the 5th NorCal store on the map, beating out its rival Pinkberry, which has not strayed out of SoCal as yet. Unfortunately, there is already an independently owned organic fro-yo store around the corner on Arroyo, Harmony Frozen Yogurt. Serving Strauss Creamery yogurt, it has gotten rave reviews and has quite a following. I hope readers will continue to frequent this establishment so it can remain in business.
The other “big” project is at Morse and Laurel; dubbed 1001 Laurel, this project will house 90 luxury condominiums as well as professional and retail space, further extending downtown. Look for a full post on this project in the near future.
For those of you with children, you’ll be happy to know that the Burton Park Playground renovation, initially scheduled to be completed last August, is now set to open on October 25th, assuming that the landscaping is established enough and the final touches are complete. What has been done so far looks fun and safe for the city’s youngest residents: bright colors adorn the climbing structures and slides, a water-spray feature has been added, there are modern swings, soft and safe ground covers, new benches/seating, and low knee-high walls with children’s artwork. Shades for the school-age area, picnic tables and final landscaping is all that is left to do.
October 7, 2008
Back in July I wrote about real estate site Property Shark, kind of an online detective service for housing. Limited to 15 major markets, including SF, this site provides a long list of info on all homes, and you can get comparable and foreclosure info as well.
One of Property Shark’s more recent postings is a color-coded map of the month detailing which areas in our beloved 7×7 have seen a drop in the price of sales, drop in the number of listings sold, and rise in the number of foreclosures. Cleverly worded as Triple Bubble Trouble (if all 3 criterion exist), Double Bubble Trouble (2 criterion) or Single Bubble Trouble (you get the jist here). I see that there are even pockets that are not color coded, which leads me to believe that they aren’t in trouble at all.
Neighborhoods in Triple Bubble Trouble, appropriately colored red, include Chinatown, Western Addition, Upper Market, Castro, Twin Peaks, Bayview/Hunters Point, Sunnyside, Ingleside, Crocker Amazon, and Visitacion Valley. On the other end of the spectrum, those areas absent of color—meaning they seem to be faring well in this crisis—are the Marina, North Beach, parts of SOMA, and the Civic Center neighborhoods. The majority of the City is purple, meaning there are only 2 of the 3 criteria present, and there are only very small pockets of blue (other than bodies of water), indicating only one issue is at hand. I’ll keep an eye on future Bubble Trouble maps, hopefully to see more blue and less red.
October 7, 2008
I fear a couple of my readers are a tad despondent after I reported in a recent post that prices in Berkeley seemed to be holding their own.
BJ wrote:”…I keep hoping things will get more affordable in the inner Bay Area. Maybe someday or maybe I should quit hoping.” While BB said: “I’m a buyer, and I want prices to go down, but this is scary… I’m waiting 3-4 more years before buying, maybe…”
With them, and others like them, in mind — good folk who feel this market is never going to be kind to them despite, or perhaps because of, the momentous financial upheavals of late — I say this: there are deals to be had in hot spots like Berkeley. Reader Toady is convinced of it. He just bought a “nice big house with income units” in the city. And he reports that: “After we put a new foundation under it, we’ll be out about $258/sf.”.
So today I bring you three properties currently for sale that I believe are at least worth investigating for their “bargain potential”. Two of them come in at under $600K. (Securing a mortgage is a whole other matter and not one that I, unfortunately, will be able to help you with.)
2434 Byron Street (above): Let me pre-empt those of you who will question the location of this home, but I happen to think San Pablo Avenue, which is nearby, is a very interesting street, full of quirky boutiques and go-to restaurants. This 3/2 home looks like it has a lot of charm and appears to be in ship shape. Price: $595,000 ($387/sq ft).
2314 1/2 Blake Street (above): This 2/1.5, 2-story condo is intriguing because it seems more like a single home and is effectively invisible from the street, being on the back of a lot behind some street-facing units. It looks like it has been smartly remodeled and has an appealing garden, reached through French doors off the living room.
Lastly, it is worth noting that a home I have been following for a while, 1730 Sonoma Avenue in the Monterey neighborhood of north Berkeley (pictured right) — a 3+/4 Cape Cod with a solar-heated swimming pool and master suite with city views — is down $601,000 (or 33%) from its original asking price of $1,849,000 to $1,248,000.
That’s either a storming case of initial overpricing, and/or an out-and-out bargain.
October 6, 2008
Today is the last day we will spend in San Francisco, and we get a sneak peek at some of the highest end homes, of which there are three, all in the Pacific Heights neighborhood. Two of the three are historical homes, designed by famous architects for famous people, and one is only 2 years old, on the market since its construction.
First off is a $23,000,000 beauty built for Adolph Spreckels in 1912 and, I believe, currently owned by author Danielle Steele. On the market 91 days, and holding steady at its asking price, this home has been fully restored with every attention given to the original details. Its 7800 square feet is made up of gorgeous dark wood (floors, doors, window casings, wide baseboards and crown molding, fireplace mantles, and even paneling in some rooms), and windows galore, allowing light to flow into every room. The lower of the 4 levels has been completely developed, adding space and an elevator transports you between floors. Bonus here is a buildable lot (maybe a carriage house for the help? Additional garage for the toys?).
Today’s middle-of-the-road mansion can be found just three doors down from the most expensive property (see below). 2901 Broadway, designed by Henry Clay Smith, is a $48,000,000 Italian Renaissance mansion built in 1928. Listed for $48,000,000 (originally $55mil), it has been on the market for 532 days. Site of the 30th Annual San Francisco Designer Showcase in 2007, it was the first time that the doors of this spectacular building were opened for the public. With 7 bedrooms. 7.5 baths, and over 10,000 square feet in size, this home has all the requisite amenities a high-end home should have, including its own tennis court. Beautifully appointed, inside and out, it really must be seen to be believed. The agent has kindly posted 33 photos on the MLS listing, affording us peons a glimpse into the magnificent.
The most expensive property listed is this Neoclassical villa, located at 2845 Broadway. Sweet Digs blogger Anna Hibble wrote about this home back in March of 2007. Listed for a cool $65 million, this home has been patiently awaiting a buyer for 948 days (without budging on the price, I might add). Built in 2006, it boasts over 20,000 square feet, plus a guest house, and sits on two lots between Broadway and Pacific (although the aerial map on Redfin does not show the second lot in a red outline.) Needless to say this is the best house in the best neighborhood. You can read Anna’s post and check out exterior pictures here.
October 5, 2008
With the housing crunch in full swing in California and many of my friends nearing retirement age, I am hearing lots of dreaming going on. Arizona is a prime place for many former “techies” to relocate to, thanks to great weather, lower property values, beautiful mountains and an almost endless stream of golf courses to play.
As I write this post, I am sitting in the Scottsdale Resort and Athletic Club - looking out at Camelback Mountain and enough saguaro cactii to populate an entire spaghetti Western. It is peaceful, all the buildings are new, and I had no trouble finding a healthy yet inexpensive place to eat dinner (China Lite - a no MSG, low oil and all natural ingredient Chinese restaurant). The terrain is rugged, yet friendly to those who seem hardy enough to conquer its challenges.
As this is a resort town, the property values for newer homes are dramatically higher than for older, resale homes. The median price for resale homes right now in Scottsdale is $595K for a 2,295 square foot home ( in comparison, the median price in 2005 was $525K). Nearby Paradise Valley, with lots of new upscale homes, in contrast has a median home price of $1.656M.
Although I dearly love California, I must say that living in a place that has no earthquakes, no tornados, no hurricanes, no grass to mow and is only one hour away from good skiing is mighty tempting. I may consider coming here myself when the hustle and bustle of Silicon Valley doesn’t fit my lifestyle needs any more. The only real downside is the heat, which could be a bit daunting for those of us who run for cover when the thermometer hits triple digits.
October 5, 2008
In my quest to find great deals in great neighorhoods, 2343 Mastlands Dr. (photos here)has come up on my radar several times. It sold last summer for $680,000 and recently sold again last month for $550,000. Its highest sale was $950,000 in April of 2006. While its description stated “BANK-OWNED, SOLD AS-IS. Well maintained home in Oakland Hills with great views. Minor TLC required…” I’m still surprised that it sold for so low given that it’s in the Piedmont Pines neighborhood of Oakland. Often called “exclusive” and “desirable” by realtors, San Francisco Magazine has called Piedmont Pines “nature for folks with serious cash” and “one of the prime locations in the Bay Area” (October 2007 edition). While not necessarily a “gorgeous” house glancing at the photos, this seems to follow the mantra of “location, location,location”: being in one of Oakland’s best areas makes $550,000 sound like a steal, even in this market.
2343 Mastlands Dr.
4bd/3ba
Sold for $550,000 on September 3, 2008.
Square Footage: 2150
Built in: 1958
Lot size: 11,761 SF
Sales History
| May 23, 2001 |
$240,000 |
– |
| Sep 26, 2002 |
$10,000 |
-90.6%/yr |
| Apr 04, 2006 |
$950,000 |
264.5%/yr |
| Aug 27, 2007 |
$680,000 |
-21.3%/yr |
| Sep 03, 2008 |
$550,000 |
-18.8%/yr |
October 5, 2008
Of all the cities in the USA, which would you think most inviting for single people? Thanks to Redfin’s Sweet Digs blog in Boston, I’ve discovered that Forbes.com lists San Francisco as the 2nd best city for singles to live in.
This news surprises me a little. I’d think New York, Chicago, Atlanta, DC…. San Francisco would occur to me too, eventually. I mean, I live here. As a single person I met many men, also (we hope) single, over the course of a decade enjoying this city’s activities, clubs, night life, community, and culture. But it took me all those years to find a man I could actually consider a life with.
After all, this is not an easy city to really settle into. Most people are here for the short term, escaping small towns to partake in urban excitement. We don’t, most of us, really think we’ll ever be able to afford a home here; we don’t like to think of putting our future children in the public school lottery; we cannot imagine trying to find parking for every soccer game, grocery trip, doctor’s appointment. This is a transitory city. We meet lots of attractive, interesting, smart and talented singles, but we can’t count on them to be here in a few months, to say nothing of a few years. Thus, it’s a fabulous place for hook-ups and flings. Not sure it’s the best choice to search for a long-term relationship.
Indeed, most of my married friends with kids are planning their move to a more child friendly, less expensive, locale. Maybe that’s a reason SF made it to one a “best of” list for singles– not many middle-class familes can make it here, so largely, singles own the place.
How did Forbes decide the winning cities, exactly? The methodology for this ranking is interesting, but (surprise!) not very scientific, because along with measurable factors like job growth, “coolness” has also been considered.
Still, who could argue San Francisco is not cool? Not me, or I’d have taken my single or coupled self out of here long ago. And anyway, Forbes has got to know something, right? Don’t those people have a direct line to Wall Street/Time-Warner/God?
So, you’re now convinced, or at least intrigued. Ready for your shot at this hot city for living solo? Here are a few homes that might fit your bachelor/bachelorette lifestyle. All of these listings are less than $650K, to leave some room for the good clothes, the expensive booze, the shows, the cover charges, and the parking tickets so endemic of dating in SF.
1. 2671 Bryant: a 1/1 TIC in the hipster Inner Mission for $399,388.
2. 380 10th St., #8: A sexy 1/1 loft in the SOMA for $599K.
3. 8 Jordan Ave., #12: Laurel Heights (so you can pick up on all the USF hotties) 1/1 condo for $550K.
4. 145 Gardenside Dr., 11: Twin Peaks (so you can pick up on all the Castro hotties) 1/1 condo for $499K. Red walls= insta-love-shack.
ROLL CREDITS:
October 4, 2008
“Main Street USA”: but where is it in Berkeley?
All this talk from our presidential candidates of “Wall Street” versus “Main Street” has prompted some interesting discussion on what people understand these terms to mean. A particularly erudite conversation was held over at one of my favorite blogs, Nancy Friedman’s Fritinancy. (Wherefrom I glean that London doesn’t have a single road that is named Main Street — this is patently an American tradition.)
Which has led me to ponder on Berkeley’s “main street”. Does it in fact have one? And if not, why not?
The contenders, in my view, would be Shattuck Avenue, Telegraph Avenue, Fourth Street, Solano Avenue and College Avenue. The fact that there are five potentials here is worrying enough — what happened to the concept of a city having a natural centre?
Shattuck wins from a historical perspective (the original street had trains and then trams running down its center I believe), and is located in the heart of Berkeley’s downtown, for what that is worth. It is also where Berkeley’s founder, Francis Kittredge Shattuck, chose to make his home.
Telegraph is Cal heartland and no doubt students would consider it to be the city’s real hub. Fourth Street is the go-to retail hot-spot but I’m not sure if that is enough for it to qualify for the “main street” prize (although fans of Santana Row would disagree, this shopping mecca having all but made redundant San Jose’s downtown on a weekend).
Lastly we have Solano and College — both bustling, vibrant streets with all the requisite eateries and social amenities one would expect to see on a main street but… well, aren’t they neighborhood gathering spots rather than a city’s nucleus?
What are the characteristics of the principal thoroughfare of a city? And why is it so difficult to identify one in my adopted home?
[Photo credit: www.weblo.com/domain/available/ mainstreetnet. com/]
October 3, 2008
Previous Posts:
A Kitchen Odyssey: Follow Along If You Dare
A Kitchen Odyssey: From the Beginning
A Kitchen Odyssey: What Needs to Be Done
When we moved into our current home there was old cracked and stained linoleum on our kitchen floor. Due to our limited budget and construction time, we opted to put down vinyl sheeting over the existing floor. As I mentioned before, this linoleum lasted 11 years, until a dishwasher leak forced us to tear it up. We also had to try and tear up two older linoleum layers that had fused together. This was practically impossible, and we finally gave up, installing FLOR carpet tiles as an interim fix.
This brings us up to the present. What complicates matters, when thinking about kitchen flooring, is two adjoining spaces. Through an open doorway (no door) is what was originally designed as a dining room. The previous owners used it as a family room, and we bought the house with the intention of using it as my office, which it has been for the 13 years we have owned the home. When we go to sell, down the road, it will be staged as a dining room, which is its most efficient use given the layout of our home. Currently this room is carpeted in the same FLOR squares used in the kitchen. We also have a foyer, which upon entering the home connects to a hallway on the left (to the bedrooms/bathrooms), the kitchen to the right, and opens into the living room. Currently this foyer is tiled in 6×6 gold tile with thick brown grout. Very ’60s-’70s. In other words, hideous. It needs to be replaced, so we will consider replacing it, depending on our final kitchen floor choice.
Right now there are four options in my mind:
1) Wood: there is hardwood in the living room, hall, and all bedrooms. Only the living room floor is currently exposed, as the other floors were ruined by pet urine from the previous owners. If we were to choose hardwood, it would only go in the kitchen and dining room, and it would most likely match the living room, to some extent. While I
would like to consider bamboo for my kitchen, all voices warn me against this choice. Bamboo is softer than many woods, and dings and mars more easily. Because our kitchen is a very high traffic area and gets a lot of use, it just would not be prudent. With the appropriate finish, wood can wear very well in a kitchen.
2) Linoleum: I’m not talking vinyl here, I’m talking real old-fashioned linoleum, made from linseed oil, not some synthetic petroleum-based product. Linoleum has come a long way from your grandmother’s kitchen, and is a very durable surface, not to mention hypoallergenic. The newer types of linoleum come in some great colors, and can be solid, marble, flecked, or with a pattern. (Like the Armstrong Marmorette in Terazzo Gray seen here.) It comes in sheets or tiles. This would be an option for the kitchen only.
(3) Stone or Tile Squares: Floor tiles come in a variety of sizes, but since my kitchen is relatively narrow, I would be hesitant to use the larger 18×18 tiles. I think the 12×12 would be better suited, and could work in the foyer and dining room, as well. Or there are multiple sizes that can be combined to form a pattern. Indoor stone choices include granite, travertine, limestone, slate, marble, and manufactured stone. Tiles come in a variety as well, such as terrazzo, encaustic, ceramic and terra cotta. Both are fairly easy to maintain, with a mop and warm water; they don’t stain easily, and are hypoallergenic.
(4) Concrete: This is a very durable option, and could be used in all three areas, kitchen, foyer and dining room. It wears well, cleans well, and I really like the contemporary look of the concrete floors. You can polish them, stain them, tint them, stamp them. (I like the look of the polished concrete at right, by A. Pellizari & Co.) They can look like marble or granite, or even like conventional tile. It can be somewhat cold and hard, but that doesn’t bother me in the least. A large area rug could be used in the dining room for color and warmth, and I like a functional kitchen that cleans easily.
I’ll be exploring each option in future postings. Please weigh in if you have recently put in flooring, particularly in a kitchen. I’d like to hear how things are holding up, if prices are reasonable and/or worth it, as well as any pros or cons.
Recent Sweet Digs Posts
SF: Neighborhood Art is both a Form of Protest and Escape
Home Sale Question: What Does Your Neighbor Say About You?
