San Francisco warehouse listings: what matters beyond citywide averages?

[SmallEmber]

Getting the comparison wrong could mean treating a stale warehouse as a bargain when its price reflects condition or financing problems. I am looking at San Francisco listings from $980,000 to $1,470,000, and the typical property in my sample has been advertised for 102 days.

The two neighbourhoods we favour do not behave alike, so a citywide average may be hiding more than it reveals. Insurance was my first explanation for the gap between quick sales and lingering stock, but seller motivation, building condition and withdrawn or relisted properties may matter more.

What are recent completed sales showing within these neighbourhoods? I would also be interested in when sellers made their first reduction, whether withdrawn stock later returned with a new date, and whether a boundary drawn only a few streets differently changes the result.

 

[hana.slate]

I wouldn’t put insurance first without comparing condition and financing. Warehouse listings can look similar online while requiring very different work, and that can shrink the buyer pool. Separate genuinely new listings from relisted or withdrawn stock, then compare asking prices with recent completed sales inside each neighbourhood rather than across the city.

 

[FairView]

Also ask when the first price cut happened. A motivated seller cutting early is a different case from one sitting for 102 days and only then adjusting. Are these vacant buildings or occupied, and are you counting listings just across the neighbourhood boundary? Those details could explain more than the headline average. I’d make a small table for each candidate: condition, financing constraints, listing history, cuts, withdrawal/relisting, and nearby completed sales.