Market your property to Chinese buyers in Chinese

 

If you are planning on selling your property to one of the largest buyer segments in the local San Francisco Bay Area real estate market, you can not do it in English-only anymore. In a recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle, it was reported that 20% of one new condo building's buyers were foreign, and that Chinese were in the top 5 of the list. With San Francisco's close proximity to Asia, the large Asian population and the recent developments by the Chinese government to allow Chinese citizens to buy real estate overseas it is wise to make sure that your property is being marketed properly to this market.

Marketing vs. Translation

While there are translation widgets available that will translate your properties information into every language in the world, reviews by native speakers often reveal that they are less than perfect when conveying your properties unique characteristics. Translation like these do not pick-up on translating English nuances well into foreign languages at all.

At sfcondomap.com, a recent listing also prominently offers information in Chinese that captures the true meanings and essence of the English text. The differences can be as dramatic as reading bad writing vs. good writing to the reader! And this will effect their perception of your property.

The "Best Practices" in marketing to particular foreign buyers is to have a native speaker that is fluent in the target markets language and that is also fluent in real estate marketing to do the translation. You can see the example at sfcondomap.com here.

For more information on marketing your property to foreign buyers, please contact Scott Pierce at 415-595-3519 or email at scott@sfcondomap.com.

A photographic tour of Eureka Valley in San Francisco

Welcome to the beautiful Eureka Valley neighborhood of San Francisco.

Photographs are courtesy of NoeHill in San Francisco. Please visit their main website here and their very well written and comprehensive history of Eureka Valley here. "The recorded history of Eureka and Noe Valleys began in 1845 when José de Jesús Noe, the last Mexican alcalde (mayor) of San Francisco, was granted Rancho San Miguel, four thousand acres which spread across Twin Peaks and down into the valleys lying to the east."              - NoeHill

Please visit our Eureka Valley photographic tour here.

306 Eureka Street: A Grand Victorian Renovated Condo

Click the "Walkable" map below to find out all of the fantastic places around 306 Eureka Street. You will see that there is a very high "Walkable score" of 86 (out of 100) for this property because of all the great things around!

Go to the Property Website for 306 Eureka Street. You will find detailed information, photo slideshows, videos, neighborhoood and 'walkable' maps and more.

Symphony Towers Sales Update

Symphony Towers, a new condominium development in San Francisco, has now had buyers move into 51 of the 130 units for sale, with 36 more now in contract. Having 87 of 130 units already sold or in contract is a great sales rate and is a testament to the design (LOVE the roof deck), quality, price and location. We love Symphony Towers as it is one of the few new condominium buildings built within an already established neighborhood.

Read "S.F. housing boom moves to Van Ness" by J.K. Dineen in the San Francisco Business Times for more information about the development of the Van Ness Avenue corridor.

New Development Sales (03/08/08)

For more information on San Francisco condominium sales and closings, including list price, detailed property information, MLS listing information or anything else, email us here and send us the property name and unit number.

Of the 8 sales listed, only the 3 Jackson Square listings were on the MLS. Which would make the MLS reported sales statistics much lower than they really are.

Sign up for the SFCondoMap Newsletter For Email Marketing you can trust

Go to the SF Condo Map here for all the buildings mapped out with detailed information. Search the MLS for all condos and real estate here.

San Francisco Department of Planning: Board of Appeals Meeting Wrap-up

A couple of items of interest to San Francisco real estate home owners, buyers and sellers from the March 5, 2008 Department of Planning Board of Appeal's meeting.

(4) Appeal No. 08-018
455 Vallejo Street

Sandeep Hingorani (Appellant) vs. DPW and Bureau of Street-Use & Mapping (Respondent).

In order to do work on a building on Montgomery Street, a crane was placed by Sheedy Crane across the street from 455 Vallejo Street. The owner, Hingorani's representative, argued that the Path of Travel requirements were not being observed, and wanted restrictions placed on the location and use of the crane. 

After testimony from both sides, the Board agreed keep the crane in it's current proposed location, but to increase the Path of Travel requirements from 10'
to 11' for day use and from 12' to 18' at night.

The board also directed the DPW/BSM representative (who was present) to provide the Hingorani representative with a direct phone number to call for violation reports, and for an inspector to be available for any problems.

Sheedy agreed and the appellant voiced agreement.

If the goal of the appellant (the person with the complaint) is to just get equipment removed because they do not like it, you probably will not succeed. But the Board of Appeals will hear a complaint and judge it on its merits.

Here the Board would not remove the crane as Sheedy demonstrated that this was the best location out of all possible locations that were available. Sheedy suggested the increased distance for the Path of Travel, and it was agreeable to all sides.

(6) Appeal No 07-230
1884 San Jose Avenue

Keith Foote (Appellant) vs. DPW and Bureau of Urban Forestry (respondent).

Foote argued that the decision of the respondent (DPW) to remove a 33 year old tree in front of his residence was wrong. That it was their lack of proper maintenance of the tree that caused the current problems, and that DPW should be directed to nurture the tree back into good health and condition.

DPW and the BUF argued that the tree needed to be removed and that it was the fact that the roots were very aggressively destroying the sidewalk and that this was causing a hazard that necessitated the decision. And that nurturing the tree back into health was not likely do to the species of tree.

President Garcia remarked that it was the first time he heard of a homeowner being the appellant with the DPW and BUF as respondent in a case like this. But it was
Commissioners Haaland, Knox and the new Peterson who overruled the DPW and directed the DPW to work to bring the tree into good health and conformity regarding safety issues.

NOTE FOR HOMEOWNERS: Homeowners are responsible for the condition of sidewalks in front of their property. The city can and does issue 30 day notice to repair notices to homeowners to correct deficiencies in the condition of sidewalks.