Get 'Er Done
Posted on Wednesday, May 26th, 2010 at 4:36am.Not so long ago, if you wanted 2708 Pacific, you'd need to pay $1.849m. But not now.
Actually, someone once agreed to pay something close to that for the 5br/4ba, 3400 sq. ft., early-90s home with its graceful updates.
As you may recall from "Spring's Intriguing Signs," back around 3 months ago, Pacific had a quick deal, which MBC cited as Exhibit A for a series of "quick sales on new listings that don't even seem particularly well-priced."
The deal didn't stick, though, and Pacific hung around quite a while longer. It was last seen 2 weeks ago at $1.699m, when it quit. (See "Luck Runs Out.")
How quickly fortunes reverse.
Now 2708 Pacific is teed up to be the sensation of the week.
Re-listed at $1.399m, Pacific has a new come-hither price.
The sellers' orders are pretty clear: No more hanging around, nickel-and-diming, verbal offers, maybes, what-ifs, or etceteras. Get 'er done.
Every buyer hanging around near the $1.5m price point is being dragged off the fence.
You want 3400 sq. ft., updated, under $1.5m? Try East MB. Whoops! West of Sepulveda?!?
The folks who closed last week on closely comparable 3517 Oak (5br/4ba, 3300 sq. ft.) for $1.485m probably thought they were getting a healthy location discount. They're on an isolated block of Oak near Rosecrans and looking out at the hotel.
To now see a superior home and location up for almost $100k less a week later would be, at best, unnerving.
Look at 3213 Walnut a moment. That's 3br/2ba, 1850 sq. ft. The remodel's nice enough, the location pretty sweet, but it's lingering a bit at $1.399m.
For the same price, Pacific gives you 1500 sq. ft. more worth of living space and a more luxe home overall.
The comparisons are endless, but they all wind up at the same place: 2708 Pacific isn't really a $1.399m house. It'll settle higher than that if the new price works its magic, drawing in multiple offers and finding the market.
Still, if they close at a $1.4-ish price, watch out. That'd be just about the most unwelcome comp of 2010, in a year when sellers are starting to feel kind of good.
Actually, someone once agreed to pay something close to that for the 5br/4ba, 3400 sq. ft., early-90s home with its graceful updates.
As you may recall from "Spring's Intriguing Signs," back around 3 months ago, Pacific had a quick deal, which MBC cited as Exhibit A for a series of "quick sales on new listings that don't even seem particularly well-priced."
The deal didn't stick, though, and Pacific hung around quite a while longer. It was last seen 2 weeks ago at $1.699m, when it quit. (See "Luck Runs Out.")
How quickly fortunes reverse.
Now 2708 Pacific is teed up to be the sensation of the week.
Re-listed at $1.399m, Pacific has a new come-hither price.
The sellers' orders are pretty clear: No more hanging around, nickel-and-diming, verbal offers, maybes, what-ifs, or etceteras. Get 'er done.
Every buyer hanging around near the $1.5m price point is being dragged off the fence.
You want 3400 sq. ft., updated, under $1.5m? Try East MB. Whoops! West of Sepulveda?!?
The folks who closed last week on closely comparable 3517 Oak (5br/4ba, 3300 sq. ft.) for $1.485m probably thought they were getting a healthy location discount. They're on an isolated block of Oak near Rosecrans and looking out at the hotel.
To now see a superior home and location up for almost $100k less a week later would be, at best, unnerving.
Look at 3213 Walnut a moment. That's 3br/2ba, 1850 sq. ft. The remodel's nice enough, the location pretty sweet, but it's lingering a bit at $1.399m.
For the same price, Pacific gives you 1500 sq. ft. more worth of living space and a more luxe home overall.
The comparisons are endless, but they all wind up at the same place: 2708 Pacific isn't really a $1.399m house. It'll settle higher than that if the new price works its magic, drawing in multiple offers and finding the market.
Still, if they close at a $1.4-ish price, watch out. That'd be just about the most unwelcome comp of 2010, in a year when sellers are starting to feel kind of good.
comments powered by Disqus



Print