November 5, 2008

1438 Jackson: If You Missed It When New (And Now That You Know)

1438-1446 Jackson

Speaking of Dawson&Clinton developments, a plugged-in tipster notes that 1438 Jackson is back on the market and asking $1,629,000.

1438 Jackson: Kitchen

Once again, high-end finish and fixtures (Bulthaup, Miele, Subzero, Dornbracht, Lefroy Brooks, WET, Bonelli). And purchased for $1.5M at the beginning of the year.

∙ Listing: 1438 Jackson (3/2.5) 1,227 sqft - $1,629,000 [MLS]
We’ll Give You The Jump Once Again: 3119 Harrison On The Market [SocketSite]
From Rendering To Reality (And The MLS): 1446 Jackson Street [SocketSite]

First Published: November 5, 2008 11:00 AM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

Posted by: eddy at November 5, 2008 11:56 AM

when i first looked at the price tag, i thought it was for the whole building.

Posted by: condoshopper at November 5, 2008 12:09 PM

How has this increased $129,000 in 10 months in this market? $1328/sq ft. Good luck with that.

Posted by: CameronRex at November 5, 2008 12:21 PM

$1327/sf? Any fools left around SF?

Posted by: San FronziScheme at November 5, 2008 12:23 PM

Cheap as chips compared to #25A 1200 California Street priced at -- wait for it -- $2,017/sq ft.

Posted by: Home Girl at November 5, 2008 12:32 PM

Hopefully the sounds of kids at recess are music to your ears. Spring Valley Elementary is just across the way.

Posted by: Binnings Team at November 5, 2008 12:55 PM

Looking at the listing - an HOA but no dues - fishy...

Posted by: Dede at November 5, 2008 1:18 PM

Seems hard to imagine that they'd get more than $1000 psf in that neighborhood, tho maybe it's really nice inside and they'll get more. If they get $1K/psf, that's about $20K per month in lost equity. Tack on the PITI costs and the realtor fees. So it cost them about $1000 per day to live there. Hope they enjoyed it!

Posted by: tipster at November 5, 2008 1:23 PM

i'm continually amazed at the churn that exists in SF Real Estate listings given the paucity of overall listings for sale. Things evidently either never sell or they sell again and again in just a few short years (or months even)

although one has to think that part of what's happening now may be due to financial dislocations.

Posted by: ex SF-er at November 5, 2008 1:49 PM

lest wenot forget that these flew off the shelves back in the day. times do change.

Posted by: eddy at November 5, 2008 1:51 PM

That is just so very ugly from the front. That will look dated and tired in 10 years from now.

Posted by: Kealoha at November 5, 2008 1:53 PM

asking for the previous price plus selling costs is just so 2007.

Posted by: diemos at November 5, 2008 1:55 PM

It would appear that Smoove B wrote the sales copy.

Posted by: amused at November 5, 2008 2:01 PM

very Smoove B! Damn.

Posted by: blaise5000 at November 5, 2008 2:05 PM

I looked at this property in 06 when it was a 1905 2 unit that needed a lot of work. Back then they wanted $1.75 million for the whole thing. The owner had plans for building multiple units in the backyard, and adding a garage. I wonder what the developers paid for it.

Posted by: ottoman at November 5, 2008 2:15 PM

Anybody know what 1446 Jackson (unit 1 here) sold for?

Posted by: Foolio at November 5, 2008 2:46 PM

Dede - HOA without dues is very possibly when its just a 2 unit. Sometimes the owners will just agree to pay for things that come up jointly. I lived in this sort of arrangement for years and the other owner and I just felt it was easier to not manage a separate HOA account. But the HOA itself is a requirement of being a condo.

Posted by: CameronRex at November 5, 2008 3:14 PM

Interesting, if you look at the rendering pictured with the Dec. 2007 SS article, it shows a much more attractive gray stone instead of the ugly brick on the facade. Wonder why they changed??

Posted by: sunnyvalesteve at November 5, 2008 4:15 PM


Yes, but this is a 4-unit building.

Posted by: Foolio at November 5, 2008 4:54 PM

CameronRex - Thank you for your comment. I can understand with a two unit building with zero monthly dues. You have to go in eyes wide open knowing you can be surprised.

A four unit building and up is another question. I don't think it is a terribly responsible way to run an HOA - especially considering the relatively new requirement to perform a reserve study and create a funding plan which much formally be adopted. Never mind all the other important HOA issues and the need to maintain the building and common area. HOAs are essentially private governments and if you have a litigious member, good luck.

I guess what I would say is that I would discount the value of the property when compared to a another where there is a more responsible HOA. Especially in a buyers market.

Posted by: Dede at November 5, 2008 5:22 PM

I am in a 3-unit building with an HOA, with a relatively small monthly payment and no reserve account. Everything major that comes up requires a special assessment. This requires good communication and equanimity between owners. It is absolutely not something I would go into again. A 4-unit building with no fees and relying on owners to sort out payments as they come up? Forget about it.

Posted by: Oceangoer at November 6, 2008 9:20 AM

Post a comment

(required - will be published)

(required - will not be published, sold, or shared)

(optional - your "Posted by" name will link to this URL)

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Continue Perusing SocketSite:

« The Day After: November 4 Real Estate Related Election Results | HOME | New Designs For Dwellings And Retail At Market And Sanchez »