In 2005, the average sale price for a 2 bedroom condo (not loft) in SOMA was 935,052 and the average sale was 945,311. There were 47 sales. In 2006 there were 63 sales, and the average list was $933,203 and the average sales price was $928,848. Appreciation for 2 bedroom condos in SOMA was negative, with the average decline being -1.74%.
How does this compare to the city as a whole? In 2005, there were 1,062 sales of 2 bedroom condos with an average list price of $807,456 and an average sales price of $858,955. In 2006, there were 985 sales of 2 bedroom condos, with an average list price of 855,663, and an average sales price of $863,659. Appreciation for 2 bedroom condos in San Francisco was a tad positive, with the average increase being .54%.
A couple of caveats: all data is from the San Francisco MLS, which doesn't include all of the new construction sales. Anything sold that wasn't listed in the MLS isn't reflected in the stats, which raises the question, is the data an accurate snapshot of what happened in SOMA last year?
But here is my real question: how did particular buildings do against the average, and are the numbers useful? Are all 2 bedroom condos created equal? For example, how did a 2 bedroom condo at Museum Parc do against condos at 140 South Van Ness (aka 1655 Mission).
2 beds at Museum Parc averaged a sales price of 811,700 in 2005 (10 sales), and in 2006 sold for an average of 867,500 (4 sales). Museum Parc appreciation: 6.87%.
2 beds at 140 S. Van Ness averaged a sales price of $694,667 in 2005 (3 sales), and in 2006 sold for an average of $784,500 (1 sale). 140 S. Van Ness appreciation: 12.93%.
Were you really doing twice as good if you lived at 140 S. Van Ness? Or did the low number of sales skew the numbers? And if condos are doing so well at these two buildings, what buildings were doing so badly that the overall SOMA trend for condos skewed downward?
Stay tuned for more adventures in statistics.
And remember, there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics!
Comments