Wouldn’t It Be Waverley?
Let’s finish out the first weekend of summer with another Two for One Special. Thanks very much to Burbed reader nomadic for this Palo Alto find.
1936 WAVERLEY St
Palo Alto, CA 94301
$8,988,000
BEDS: 2 BATHS: 1 SQ. FT.: 1,020 $/SQ. FT.: $8,812 LOT SIZE: 7,000 Sq. Ft. PROPERTY TYPE: Detached Single Family STORIES: 1 YEAR BUILT: 1926 COMMUNITY: Old Palo Alto COUNTY: Santa Clara MLS#: 81222806 SOURCE: MLSListings STATUS: Active ON REDFIN: 4 days
Price includes 1934(front) and 1936(back) Waverley St. These 2 properties are in the prime location of Old Palo Alto and are to be sold together. It’s a rare opportunity to own a 2 lots together in Old PA. #1934 has 3/2.5 + 2 car garage, with serene back yard. #1936 has 2/1 old ranch + 1 detached garage. City shows larger lot area. Buyer to varify with city planning dept for lot size and FAR
Yes, it’s just like the pair of homes we ran on Tuesday, except these have 8s in the price. And 8s in the price per square foot, too!
Be sure to check out the other house.
June 22nd, 2012 at 7:29 am
$9m for what is essentially a 14k lot? That seems way too high. Yet, $900k seems too low.
June 22nd, 2012 at 8:29 am
Another Palo Alto thread. I am expecting Banker East to show up and asking about $2M SF condo.
June 22nd, 2012 at 8:50 am
Sellers pricing too high in PA? Not in my RBA.
June 22nd, 2012 at 9:16 am
I like how the two halves of the bundle generate completely different entries in the “nearby similar listing/sales” columns. The size of the house on 1934 qualifies it for “Waverley-dom” (although even by Waverley standards it seems moderately overpriced, even when you factor in the inclusion of the slave quarters’ flag lot.), while 1936′s comparatively pocket-size dimensions link it to gems like this:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Palo-Alto/508-Military-Way-94306/home/721941
Beds: 2
Baths: 2
Sq. Ft.: 932
“House is currently being used as a three unit tri-plex.”
The mind boggles.
June 22nd, 2012 at 11:30 am
According to the data on Redfin, both homes last sold in 1989, but a few weeks apart:
1934- “Feb 15, 1989 Sold (Public Records) $800,000″
(Larger front lot = ~11k)
1936- “Mar 31, 1989 Sold (Public Records) $375,000″
(Smaller back lot = ~$7k)
For a total of $1,175,000 back in 1989.
Given that 94301 is required to double faster than the standard RBA 10 year period, I’d suggest that these two properties must have doubled at least 3 times, for an average double period of about 7 years.
Using this as a totally sound basis for today’s value, at a minimum, = $1,175k*8 = $9,400k.
Beyond that, how many owners are there between these two separate properties? Is the ownership the same for both? If not, did the two neighbors hatch a plan to sell both properties together with some sort of thought that a single sale results in higher proceeds versus two sales?
June 22nd, 2012 at 1:02 pm
This parcel seems crazy expensive.
June 22nd, 2012 at 1:12 pm
In response to #5 and as a payback for the guilty pleasure of reading Burbed, the Lexis database shows the same owners, who apparently live far,far away:
Owner Information
Original Name: HUANG JACK C AND ALICE C
Standardized Name: HUANG, JACK C
HUANG, ALICE C
Original Address: NO 8 FU SHUN ST TAIPEI 104 TAIWAN R C
XX
June 22nd, 2012 at 1:58 pm
It’s crazy that we let absentee owners like this cash in on our properties. Ugh. They’re not very good neighbors, generally… Only there for profit, not to actually, you know, use the land.
June 22nd, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Crissa,
If owners are required to use the land, then where are renters going to live?
June 22nd, 2012 at 2:55 pm
[Whining removed -- ed.]
June 22nd, 2012 at 4:02 pm
Isn’t that Steve Job’s house one block south? At the corner of Waverley and Santa Rita?
June 22nd, 2012 at 4:04 pm
Waverley, only street in RBA.
June 22nd, 2012 at 5:39 pm
Facebook rises again!
How many times have we seen this happen? The person with the perfect track record makes a call. The same 3 or 4 people who should have been acting were laughing instead. Time passes by and RE gets the last laugh…all the way to the bank!
It’s not like any of this can be faked. The call was made in real time!
June 22nd, 2012 at 7:37 pm
The person with the perfect track record makes a call.
—-
We bought FB in even lower price. We have SUPER perfect record.
June 22nd, 2012 at 8:38 pm
#9, good point.
#13, we’re still laughing.
June 22nd, 2012 at 9:25 pm
The loser admin is afraid to show #10. Not surprising.
June 23rd, 2012 at 12:49 am
The number of houses in the bay area that are empty instead of being rented? High.
June 23rd, 2012 at 9:15 am
Crissa,
Most rich people I know keep multiple houses all over the world. It’s not unique to Bay Area. Besides, if you buy something, you are entitled to do what you want, including keeping it unoccupied. It’s like your car. You don’t drive it all the time.
June 23rd, 2012 at 10:26 am
“if you buy something, you are entitled to do what you want,”
As if there is no zoning.
June 23rd, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Stick to the topic, man! Is there any zoning against not renting out?
June 23rd, 2012 at 1:47 pm
You don’t have absolute right to do anything with anything you own, especially real estate. Your right to own it stems from our collective allowance to let you have it.
June 23rd, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Foreign investment for American assets is something we want to encourage, instead of complain about. It’s good for our economy to have money flowing into our country.
Real estate prices staying high is also good for our economy. The government does not want to see a repeat of the great recession.
June 23rd, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Wow I would be curious to see how they sell this house. That is absurdly high!
June 23rd, 2012 at 4:09 pm
Hey, short-term memory man, please review:
Post by nomadic requiring occupancy, or else lose the right to rent it out later. Sure as an owner you don’t have to rent it out, or occupy it, but that’s an absorbing state.
June 23rd, 2012 at 7:51 pm
Ha, Palo Alto isn’t even in the top 10 richest school districts. In fact, no community in California made the cut.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2012/06/08/americas-richest-school-districts/?intcmp=obinsite
June 23rd, 2012 at 9:31 pm
To think I was drooling over the Gallagher Ranch in Marin, hundreds of acres bordering Samuel P Taylor park and the GGRA with magnificent views of Tomales bay when this was available for only 40% or so more. Thanks for helping to edumacate me.
June 23rd, 2012 at 10:19 pm
Real estate sitting empty is nothing compared to cars sitting unused. At least real estate can be rented. Most parked cars can just be parked.