1821-1823 Lyon
Purchased in March of 2002 for $975,000 but then “extensively remodeled” in 2003, 1821-23 Lyon was listed two months ago for $3,295,500, reduced a month later to $2,995,500, and then cut to $2,695,000 the day before yesterday.
According to the listing(s), the seller of has gone from being very to extremely motivated (don’t worry, a SocketSite decoder ring is on the way). And “OMC2” you ask? Owner may carry second (and not to be confused with OMD, they are back together you know).
∙ Listing: 1821-1823 Lyon (5/3.5) – $2,695,000 [McGuire] [MLS]
A SocketSite Guide To Price Reductions [SocketSite 3/06]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by anon

    What would OMD be if it were on a listing? Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Darkdonotconvey? Owner Might Dieifyoudon’tbuythisnow?

  2. Posted by DataDude

    I’ve been in this property, and the finishes are truly horrific–from the blinding cherry floors, to the faux columns, to the butter yellow walls, to the migraine-inducing bathroom tiles, to the light fixtures that look like an octopus has been staple gunned to the ceiling.
    Whoever buys this place has to factor in a couple hundred thousand to rip out the existing finishes and put in new ones.

  3. Posted by steve

    OMD back together? seriously?
    [Editor’s Note: Seriously. Or at least for a 30th Anniversary tour last month.]

  4. Posted by ester

    Remodelling is cheaper than a lot of people would think. I guess the seller’s breakeven point is $1.7 mish, assuming he did not take out a loan at 9%.

  5. Posted by San FronziScheme

    The market needs more affordable places, not more overpriced redos.

  6. Posted by Michael L.

    This house reminds me of an OMD concert at the KaABUKI about 20 years ago. They band lost power and thus came across “Mary Had A Little Lamb-ish” vs. “the dynamic” electronic pop force the were – funny stuff.

  7. Posted by satchelfan

    Check out the pictures. I have to agree with Datadude. Hideous bathroom and kitchen. Very eurotrash.

  8. Posted by tipster (not really the listing agent)

    I’m the listing agent, and we discovered this morning that the instead of the photos of the property, the listing shows stock photos from the “2004 IKEA Catalogue”. We should have the correct photos up later this week.

  9. Posted by Foolio

    From $3.295M to $2.695M in two months? What is that, like 20% off?
    I’d *say* they’re extremely motivated.

  10. Posted by DataDude

    Compared to other properties in the neighborhood, Lyon looks like a bargain.
    Lyon is listed at $788 psf, and while I’m not keen on the interior, it’s livable. Especially with heavy sunglasses.
    1911 Baker, listed at $780 psf, is a total fixer and imparts a creepy “where’s my hand sanitizer” vibe.
    2564 Sacramento, listed at N/A psf, looks quite nice inside, at least from the pictures. No eurotrash here. The price is $2.825 MM and square footage (per Property Shark) is 1,600. Assuming this is the correct sq ft–quick math–it’s priced at $1,760 psf. Yes, that’s $1,000 psf more than Lyon or Baker.
    And Sacramento doesn’t have a garage and appears to be sandwiched between two multi-purpose structures, meaning no privacy or sunshine or all-over sunbathing in the postage stamp sized backyard.
    Remember the Sesame Street song: “One of these things is not like the other things”? I’ll let you guess which property is not like the others…

  11. Posted by tipster

    “Compared to other properties in the neighborhood, Lyon looks like a bargain.”
    Don’t be ridiculous. 2922 Sacramento sat for months at $1100 psf, and was dropped 3 weeks ago without success to $1000psf, about 10% over its 2004 price (!). It’s in way better shape and hasn’t gone anywhere for $1000 psf and it’s right around the corner from Lyon Street. Prices in that neighborhood aren’t $1700 psf. They don’t appear to even be $1000 psf for something in very good condition.
    I know a bargain when I see one. Bargains are a friend of mine. And Lyon, sir, is no bargain.

  12. Posted by ex SF-er

    I guess I’m the only one who doesn’t hate this place.
    I like the floors.
    the walls can be changed with $100 of paint.
    the lightfixtures can be changed for a few hundred bucks.
    the only horrific thing for me is that bath.
    the columns don’t fit at all, but they’re also an easy fix.

  13. Posted by Foolio

    Don’t disagree, although the front half of the house seems very dark to me, and there doesn’t appear to be much of a view.
    It’s not a bad location, but it’s not exactly spectacular either.

  14. Posted by DataDude

    @ Tipster
    Umm … just to be clear: Lyon isn’t $1,700 psf, 2564 Sacramento is. And I agree it’s way overpriced. But it’s also done to the nines and close to Fillmore. All it takes is one “more money than brains” type, and this apple will be picked.
    I haven’t been in 2564 Sacramento or 2922 Sacramento–but it appears the only master “closet” in 2922 Sacramento is that tiny vinyl wardrobe thingy. From the photos, 2922 appears very dated.
    If you don’t think $788 psf for Lyon is a bargain, then what is? This is a great neighborhood.

  15. Posted by tipster

    Almost nothing is selling because the market is very clearly in free fall. So it’s tough to know what a bargain is and what isn’t.
    But comparing anything to some grossly mispriced property and declaring it a “bargain” because it’s cheaper is unfair.
    I haven’t been in 2922 Sacramento either, and I suspect the lower bedroom is probably added sq ft, making it less than the $1000 psft (and therefore perhaps less than its 2004 price!), but it is in very good shape and hasn’t sold, so my only point is that $1700 psft is NOT the market when 2922 Sacramento has been sitting at $1000 or less and it’s right around the corner.
    It doesn’t appear that even $900 psft is working any longer for the best properties. I agree that it’s a great neighborhood, and a great street. Is it a bargain? Only the market knows. The drop is only 3 days old, so we’ll know soon enough.

  16. Posted by missionite

    Oh my eyes. stop. the. burning.
    $2.6M doesn’t even get you a shred of privacy on the back deck?

  17. Posted by San FronziScheme

    No privacy needed for loaded poseurs.

  18. Posted by Andrew

    This is priced for the neighborhood, Pacific Heights, and without regard to the current dismal state of the stock market and economy. But unlike many other houses in the area, it was not originally built for the rich, and its problems persist because it is now being offered to the rich. This is partly due to the fact that the southern border of Pacific Heights have been slipping down the hill for decades. Clay was once the border, then Sacramento, and now the south side of California, not to mention Lower Pacific Heights.
    This is not a bad house. Anyone who can afford it can afford to change the interior decoration. Still it won’t sell at this price any time soon.

  19. Posted by sf

    Oh no, the dreaded “fake Victorian.” The 1.5 car garage is a give away.

  20. Posted by geekgrrl

    Now that’s what I call a vomitous remodel.
    Excuse me while I go gouge out my eyes.

  21. Posted by DataDude

    2564 Sacramento, listed about a week ago, just dropped their price $30K. And, now there are 4 bedrooms, not 3.
    A steal at $1,777 psf.

  22. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    That interior is going to look really dated once 2006 rolls around.

  23. Posted by Ryan

    The designer on this one deserves to be killed. Nothing goes at all. It looks like a mash up of terrible tastes!

  24. Posted by pica1986

    You could make an awesome bowling alley/roller rink w/ those floors and you’ve even got that cool water fountain in that bathroom, or is that a sink.
    Seriously, it’s not the worst that’s been I’ve seen. Anyone remember the design choices at 200 Brannan #506?

  25. Posted by flaneur

    For once, SF and I agree.

  26. Posted by eddy

    Back on market. 0 DOM. Same price as last year.
    From the listing:
    [i]Extremely Motivated Seller…Seller will carry second! [/i]

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *