Author: Anna Hibble
Recent posts
October 14, 2008
Ladies, you never know: You could find yourself single at any time. Maybe you find yourself that way now. That doesn’t mean the idea of owning a house should be relegated to the back of the closet along with your torn up photos of your X or the wedding dress you hope never to see again, yet can’t quite throw out.
No, you will pick yourself up and look at condos this weekend. No better therapy, they say, than shopping (I absolutely disagree with this, but make an exception for home shopping, which would cheer me up immediately and entirely). And condos are a good place to start, since they grant you access to a little community, something you might want if you’re on your own. They are the proverbial foot in the door of SF real estate, and if all goes well, one day you can sell that condo and move in to real, detached home– with or without a partner.
Empowered then, I list for you a few condos open this weekend that I myself am going to see. And for once, I can actually review them candidly, because, hey: As I’ve wanted to so ever since Redfin was banned from doing house reviews, I started my own blog, San Francisco House Porn (because I am obsessed with houses and spend many a dark hour peering at their images, I could think of no more fitting name). And since that blog is not affiliated with selling real estate, there’s not any conflict of interest with me posting opinions on homes for sale. As I say on the blog, there can’t be a conflict of interest, since my only interest is buying a house that doesn’t suck. Hope I can help a few of you do the same.
See you this weekend?
210 Hoffman Ave: Several units in this Noe locale open this weekend. I’m interested in this 1/1 at #A for $479K. This is a TIC but the building is vacant so the rules and such are yet to form. I would be able then to say: “Dogs? Yes!”
20 Crestline Dr., #5: Twin Peaks with the soaring city view. Love it. This is a 1/1 TIC for $429K.
1776 Page, #B: a 1/1 in the Haight. The price, $299K, makes one a little suspicious, but that’s what open houses are for.
25 Guerrero, #202: Here is a Mission 1/1, newly listed at $399K. TIC with a great yard in the sun belt. Worth a look!
October 12, 2008
I’ve heard it said that people who try to sell their own homes are like those who try to represent themselves in courts of law: Each has a fool for a client.
But with all the info on the web these days on homes, real estate, comps, price reductions, blogs, records of all kinds, it seems a for-sale-by-owner seller would have plenty of solid material with which to come to a reasonable listing price for his or her home. Still, few of us could have predicted the current market, and its effects on home prices is still evolving; thus, even the most educated seller is having to come down from initial asking, especially as homes linger on the market longer and buyers get harder to find.
Here then are a crop of FSBO listings that have come down in asking since they hit the market; or, if they haven’t come down, they should, because they’ve been on the market a long, lonnnng time. You might then find that special deal, sans commission, at an already discount price.
1. 112 28th St.: 2/1 SFH home in Noe, with parking, asking $929K. After 200+ days on the market, this one is ripe for a lesser offer. Know going in that it sold in ‘05 for $825,000.
2. 1 Daniel Burnham Ct.: 2/2 condo with 1 parking space, shared deck and pool (pictured).
This one is interesting because it lists for $719,000. The write up claims this price to be a $75K reduction off the unit’s “recent market valuation,” yet comps show the highest current listing in the same building (and the same size/# of beds) at $660K, and one 2/2, #609 is $599K.
3. 101 Crescent Way: This is a 2/2 Bayview Heights condo that came on the market in July of ‘08 for $665K. Today it’s still available, though it offers a 2 car garage and panoramic view (you can see plenty of light in kitchen below). Currently $639K.
Daly City
1. Down 4 times since first listing in April of this year is 310 Barbara Ln (pictured below), a 2/1.5 townhouse with parking. Currently rests at $539K.
2. 30 Clearview Dr.: $699,00 may be optimistic for this 4/3 SFH with 109 DOM. Highest priced nearby listing is $640K, and, more tellingly, the highest similar sale, in July of ‘08, was $605K.
October 10, 2008
House porn I get: you’re looking to buy a house. You want to see the exterior, the interior. You want to imagine yourself cooking something steamy and sinful in that glossy kitchen. You want to plan a party in that backyard, feeling the sunshine (magically captured in the photo) on your graying, coastal climate skin. Sexy.
But why are agents’ self promotion ads also sexy? I am not expecting to buy also the agent, so his/her appearance is really far, far beside the point. Why the glam shot then? Why that weird shine the face? What is that? It just makes agents look plastic, made by Mattel-like, Barbies and Kens; it does not engender trust then, but rather the opposite, because no one in her right mind trusts Barbie and Ken.
I also hate the poses in these ads. They remind me of high school year book photos: gentle, wise prom queen/king, chin on hand, hair just so, glazed “you can-trust-me” expression. Also the wild promises of dreams coming true and ending world hunger and such. Let’s be realistic, shall we? It’s real estate, not a religious conversion.
Finally, the placement of these ads is often cause for much mirth. My favorite pointless placements are in the small plastic squares that adorn shopping carts. These are particulary entertaining glimpsed in the Golden Gate Park, captured by one of the more intrepid homeless, smattered with dirt and beer and less mentionables. One can just make
out the “are you looking for a home” tagline.
My point here: Agent, save your money. What you spend on bad ads and stiff hair styles, you could offer in kick backs off your commission. Better yet, be real.
October 7, 2008
Selfish? Okay, maybe; but I’m hoping one side effect of the plunging stock market is that I might see houses I can afford in neighborhoods I’d like. Fellow blogger Tracey Taylor mentioned some deals in Berkeley, even in areas considered fairly immune to economic recessions, and we all know San Francisco real estate is purported bullet proof to such downturns. Yet, Susan Brady’s blog on Property Shark’s bubble-trouble map of the city suggests we are suffering in SF– at least, in parts.
The perplexing thing for me then, as a would-be, currently priced-out, hoping for reality check buyer, is that prices are not really going down as much as I would expect. Or maybe, as much as I’d hope. I’m not sure what I can expect for home prices, since listings can sometimes defy logic, and (these days at least) are apt to come down several thousand dollars when they start too high.
For instance, Susan’s analysis of the Property Shark map tells us Hunter’s Point and Ingleside are in trouble. This I’d expect. And as a buyer, I’d not want to try those nieghborhoods just because I might get a deal there. I would not want to actually live out there long enough to realize any investment potential. But Upper Market, Twin Peaks, and the Castro are a different story. I’d live in all those neighborhoods, and frankly, am surprised the Castro, just a street away from super-in-demand Noe Valley, is suffering.
Listings in these ‘hoods flat out belie Property Shark stats. Here’s one at 4644 18th St. (Castro): a 2/1 TIC– that’s right, a tenancy in common– for $885K. Nearby comps show nothing over $799,500.
In Twin Peaks (Clarendon Heights), a 1/1 at 160 Graystone Ter., #4 is also a TIC, albeit a “luxury” model. At 691 sq. ft. and $575K, the price-per-square is $832. Size and TIC status make this seem high to me. It’s been reduced already to get here. May be due for more…?
Also in Twin Peaks, 260 Portola Dr. is a 2/2.5 condo for is $839K. It’s been on the market at that price since Aug 31.
Grand prize goes to 3645 Market St., #2. This is a 3/3.5 condo- sounds (and looks) good but at just over 1800 sq. ft, do you need 3 and 1/2 baths? What does that leave for non-bathroom activities? Interesting too, the price history: sold for $356,500 in 2003. Started at $1,295,000 in September, now listed for $1,230,000.
Bubble trouble? I don’t see it here…
————————————————
Pic: SoCalBubble.com
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 2, 2008
You’re all getting plenty of bad, scary, sketchy and frankly, infuriating news. I’m going to take a detour.
Literally, I did that today: took a detour from my normal Inner-Sunset scene and went to see the new mural in Noe Valley. September 27 saw the completion of muralist Mona Caron’s second of two 65 foot murals in this neighborhood. The art adds a populist sort of spice to Noe, which has sometimes been accused of being a well heeled parents and their eco-friendly strollers-only environment. Caron, together with her assistant, Ruth Elliot, touched on Noe’s long history in creating a piece that spans the past, the present, and a fantastical vision of the future. It includes all sort of San Franciscans, including some yet to be born. This is just what I’d hope from Caron, whose work includes ”The “Market Street Railway” and ”The Duboce Bikeway,” gracing city corners with elements of race, culture, and class that give us our diversity.
Seeing this work reminds me that San Francisco murals make an excellent detour from regular life. We as residents are apt to forget this. We get caught up in work, housing, cross town traffic: we don’t take time to remember why we moved here in the first place. A mural tour is an excellent way to fall back in love with the city– and you can do it for cheap (even free).
The Mission is perhaps the most famous neighborhood for murals. You can Google “San Francisco Mission District Murals” and get examples and locations of these works, then plan a walking tour to enjoy them. If you prefer an educated tour, try Precita Eyes. This organization offers a variety of edifying adventures for the mural enthusiast, including private and special group tours. All are very affordable and include workshops/lectures as well as a chance to see the art.
Coit Tower offers another must see mural locale, this one dating back to the 1930’s and the New Deal.
From the same period are Diego Rivera’s murals, one at City College 
(Ocean Ave. campus) and another at the Art Institute on Chestnut Street. Both are available to you any time you want to see them, gratis.
If you live in the city and haven’t yet made the pilgrimage to our mural mecca, may I urge you to do so to help you feel better about the price you pay to house yourself here. If you’re planning on joining us, I also urge you to see our public art. In it, you see who we have been, are now, and will be– in a way that no Realtor, no blog, no Chamber of Commerce can ever impart.
Plan your tour! Related links:
—
photo credits: INEtours.com and Rivera Mural.com
October 1, 2008
We’ve seen some strange sales incentives in this down real estate market, including offering one’s self in marriage with successful close of escrow as well as putting one’s home on Ebay.
These strategies get points for creativity, but do they work? One Michigan owner auctioned off a home on Ebay, only to then receive a high bid of $1.75. The winner plans to try to sell the home herself now– hopefully not on Ebay.
Here are some more confusing strategies:
A seller offering a $2000 “finder’s fee” at close of escrow. So, if I find a buyer for this property, I get the money; the buyer gets no incentive. Um…
An investment/mulit-unit property offering a mystery incentive: tiny font print proves too small to read. Must follow nonending trail of links to uncover the prize. More video game than home-for-sale ad.
Builder incentives: with the slowdown on buying, new construction is growing cobwebs. Building companies offer now everything from a trip to Tahiti to a wide-screen TV. A price reduction might be more enticing, but then, what do I know. I’m just a potential buyer who likes to read more than watch TV. Tahiti would be nice though, I admit.
Okay, your turn: In this crazy buyer’s market, what’s the strangest incentive you’ve seen lately?
September 28, 2008
Here’s a weekend in review, edited version:
Friday
-bought gas: $60 (up from $25)
-bought bread, milk, and cereal: $11 (up from $6.50)
-met with a friend to comfort her; she’d been laid off that afternoon ($30 for 4 glasses of wine and a cheese plate, although I should not be putting a price on comforting someone. The lost job is the point.)
Saturday
-got notice in mail our rent is going up the allowed amount (2.5%) so will now by $1968 for a 800 square foot 1 bedroom with a large closet they claim is a second bedroom.
-bought dog food ($30). Geez! I do want him to eat healthy, non-filler, organic food, but… he needs to get a job. Wait, there are no jobs. Read on…
-met friends to see a movie. Two of the four had been laid off Friday. That the movies now cost $11 per ticket (I admit we did not go to an art house theater– my mistake!) was a salt in the wound. We decided, to my dismay, that we simply had to forgo $6 popcorn.
When the movie turned out to suck, everyone was quite bitter and the ensuing bar tab was too high to mention.
Sunday
-read in paper that deal on $700 billion bailout has been reached. Really? Where’s my bread and cereal money? Who’s paying my friends’ rent now that they’ve lost their jobs? Somehow I don’t think those provisions are part of the deal.
Okay, so now I get to the point of this post. We see inflated prices on everything, including things we cannot go without out (so I differentiate between say, popcorn, which I could I suppose, give up; and actual food, which cannot be healthfully avoided). We see people losing their jobs. We see our investments tank. So will we also see a decline in rents?
It seems possible. After all, if people can’t afford to stay in the city, they’ll have to leave; thus, the demand that allows rents to be so high will logically dissapate. The spending bill also lifts the ban on oil drilling along the Pacific Coast. Will SF be so beautiful with oil rigs, greasy water, and dead birds littering the beaches?
And for those of us committed to trying to stay (I love my job, and luckily, it’s unionized. I am pretty safe unless the entire State University system crumbles), how many will sign leases for one bedrooms that cost $2400 a month? Further, even if we hate our current apartments, we have no incentive to look for better: most of us enjoy rent control. Moving would take it away.
Interested in the idea that rents can’t possibly stay so high in this market, I did a search for “reduced” on Craigslist San Francisco apartments for rent. A whole page of listings came back. I also saw several “first month free” and “flexible lease terms,” all signs that the strength of the “landlord” position is weakening. Overall, the prices are still very high, but I see a chink in the armor.
If rents do go down, does that have an inverse effect on buying? After all, many of us speculated that high rents serve as incentive to buy: If I’m already paying what amounts to a mortgage, why not actually own the house? But if rents go down and real estate stays high as it is, and frankly as scary as it is right now, who’ll buy?
September 26, 2008
Almost time to snuggle up to some good, old fashioned presidential debates. Before I go- and you go- here are a few possible side effects of the ecomomic downturn, sure to a topic du jour for the candidates. Yep, these are houses that just can’t sell, even here is SF where real estate has historically been hot, hot, hot.
84 Riverton Dr. : Lakeshore 3/2 SFH with 2 car garage, yard, and unwarranted rooms down for possible rental income. Yes, the kitchen looks like something from the set of The Brady Bunch (complete with round formica table for earnest family discussions), but lots of people want to remodel their own kitchens anyway– and you could do that here. On the market 63 days.
169 Grand View Dr: Twin Peaks does offer the grand views and this 2/1 cottage has panoramic potential (I mean, since no view is pictured, I assume you could get one by walking across the street). This is a small cottage, less the 800 square feet, but purports to be a contractor’s dream or investment opp. It sold for $750K in ‘05; now offered for $599K, on the market almost a year.
Here’s a West Portal classic at 319 Vicente St. This is a 2/1 SFH, gorgeous wood floors, lots of light, and unwarranted bonus rooms for more space and/or rental income. Plus a garage. Offered at $899K, this by all accounts very desirable place has been on the market 57 days.
Up in Ashbury Heights houses are lingering as well. But of course, prices haven’t come down much up there, since it’s such a posh neighborhood (its another one with amazing views too). Here is a 3/2 SFH at 20 Loma Vista Terrace: total mansion facade and interior, fully landscaped, includes garage, sun room, deck… you know, the good life. And all for $2,250,000. Hasn’t been snapped up yet though, after 119 days.
You get where I’m going: homes are sitting, and sitting, and sitting– and not just in Bayview either; they linger all over the city. If you’re in the market to buy, check Redfin’s 45 day+ search feature to peruse listing ripe for the picking.
Photo, and debate story: ABC News
September 23, 2008
I am sick of bad news so I decided to post instead something akin to what I might get from reading a romance novel set in Renaissance Europe, in some monarch’s luxuriant court. In other words, mindless, pointless, self-indulgent escape. You know the kind: all glitz, silk brocade, big feasts overflowing on gold plates. Stuff so rich it makes your teeth ache. It’s a fun diversion, so settle back with some bon-bons and a glass of champagne… and enjoy.
Here’s a condo in the Marina, a sweet pad with high gloss floors, a gorgeous kitchen, fireplace, Bay view, and hey, did I mention Marina?
It’s also steep. For $1,100,000, 1450 Green St. #5 is just a 1/1 unit, and a TIC at that. You will need to pass an “interview” with the Kings and Queens already in the court and dish out over $500 a month in HOA fees.
South of Market has lots of pricey swank. Here’s a loft at 767 Bryant, #210. You get the soaring ceiling, all that glass looking out at the city, high end appliances, and a patio. Buy this and get a 2/3 unit, over 2000 square feet for $910,000 plus close to $600 a month in HOA. Steep!
Also living royally are the residents of Rincon Hill, perhaps out most famous new building which seems to rise out of the Bay and, with its towering height (if I may extend the metaphor), rules the SF skyline.
Here’s a 2/2 at 425 1st St., #3703 which lists at $1,375,000. Its neighbor, slightly smaller, also a 2/2 is #1802, which lists for $1,299,000. Also on the market is a 1/1, #1805, listing for $699,999.
All of these units offer views to break one’s heart. Surely our bon-bons and champagne will taste better looking at this?
But folks, the HOA is close to or over $700! Will anyone be able to afford champagne? If not, no worries! In the words of one thoroughly too-many-feasts- to think-straight Queen, “Let them eat cake.”
Portrait of Marie Antoinette: Wikipedia Commons
