141 Beaver Street
According to a plugged-in tipster 141 Beaver Street will be hitting the market this weekend with an asking price of $1,850,000. Built in 1902 but redesigned by architect Bernardo Urquieta in 1986 with an emphasis on light and air.
141 Beaver Street: Kitchen
We’re digging the modern vibe and deconstructed flair.
141%20Beaver%20Sitting.jpg
And the country style garden and sweet little back yard.
141 Beaver: Back
A few more photos on the achitect’s website (“Beaver” residence) for those who can’t wait.
UPDATE: As a plugged-in reader notes, into the apple cart it goes (purchased for $1,650,000 in November of 2002).
UPDATE (4/10): 141 Beaver has been listed (and additional photos uploaded).
∙ Listing: 141 Beaver (2/2) – $1,850,000 [MLS]
Bernardo Urquieta Architects [bruarchitects.com]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Past perfect

    Ah, the 80′s, when you could actually do some pretty rad remodeling without getting hassled too much by red tape. The 70′s of course were a free for all. I take visitors on hippie remodel tours of the places that were clearly rehabbed by stoned geniuses back in the day. The Castro, upper market and Bernal are chock full of these shingled & sky lighted marvels. But this one, this is in a class by itself. I would love to see the permits…

  2. Posted by amused

    Unimpeachable.
    Proof that thoughtful modern design is timeless. 23 years and it looks completely fresh. Being able to see things like this is why I come to SS.

  3. Posted by chuckie

    May be an apple…last sold 11/22/2002 for $1.65M
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/141-Beaver-St-94114/home/1072760

  4. Posted by garrett

    beautiful house, no doubt. that’s a lot of money though. one of the bedrooms is very small and just off the kitchen, i’m looking forward to seeing what this place sells for as it will be telling if design alone can keep prices up as it sold for $1.650m in 2002.

  5. Posted by ex SF-er

    I am surprised that this was redone in 1986. the only difference to the website is that the new owners have changed appliances and lighting in the kitchen. wow.
    I wonder if part of that is that current modern design does tend to look very 1970′s to 1980′s? regardless, this looks way better than any 1986 abode I’ve ever seen. and it’s super well kept up for being 20+ years old.
    overall I like that it’s airy and light, however am surprised that they went with those cabinets. those cabinets (in the pic) look dark and foreboding and imposing… not at all in character with the rest of the house.
    well done.

  6. Posted by Geo

    nicely done and a solid space but $882/ft² seems a bit strong on the ask, but I guess the architect cache is worth it…

  7. Posted by chuckie

    If it does sell at $1.85M, that would be about 2% appreciation per year for the 6 and half years holding period.
    I, for one, will be astounded if it does sell over the $1.650M.
    My prediction – the sellers bring a check at the closing.

  8. Posted by tipster

    That’s an outstanding house in just about the best location one could imagine for a young family. Look at the map on the redfin link. Steps to a park and a playground, a short walk to public transit and not too far to Safeway.
    It’s redone, in move in condition, and priced at a 2003 price when prices are really still at 2004.
    I think the place will fly off the market for above asking.

  9. Posted by bernie lomax

    Am I the only one turned off by that huge pole in the middle of the room?
    Column in the middle of the room syndrome!

  10. Posted by San FronziScheme

    bernie lomax,
    I believe this is a chimney duct. I wouldn’t see the point of having a support column in this location.
    [Editor’s Note: Not only a duct but nowhere near the effective middle of the room (note the stairwell behind).]

  11. Posted by San FronziScheme

    I agree with on some of tipster’s comment on the location, though the slopes to get to the park are pretty daunting for baby strollers. There is no access to CH from Beaver. You have to go down to Castro and then go up 16th to get there. Even I cannot cycle up 16th which is my personal test for walkability. Watch for knee fatigue on the way down. I’ve been on 16th many times and you cross path with very nice people but also the occasional transient (the one who did not get the memo about the shopping cart line) from the 2 dead ends.
    The lot is a bit on the wedge side. Big front and small back yard.

  12. Posted by rubber_chicken

    san fronzischeme,
    There is access to CH from Beaver via a little public stair where the street bends (20-feet or so from this property), it leads right to the tennis coourts, lawn and randall museum above. My kids would be in heaven!

  13. Posted by San FronziScheme

    rubber_chicken,
    Good point. I always thought this was a private staircase!
    Indeed a great feature.

  14. Posted by Trip

    This is my neighborhood, and I agree that the park, Randall, tennis courts, etc. are just great (and my kids are still little enough that we are frequent users of all). I know this house but have never been inside. It does look very, very nice (more so than I would have guessed from the outside). In fact, from the 1997 price ($923k) I suspect it may even be nicer than one would take away from the photos. That was quite pricey for then. The 1994 price ($665k) is right about where things were selling around here in the mid- to late- 90s. The designer was way ahead of the curve when this was done. But I’m with chuckie and I’ll be surprised if this gets the 2002 price in today’s market. There are a lot of places for sale around here, and I don’t think many SFRs have sold recently.

  15. Posted by Jim

    This is a truly wonderful house – filled with light and air and space – which is really what modern architecture is about. I saw it on open house when the architect sold it, and then and every time since then it has sold it has sold for much more than a conventional house would. This quality of architecture is rare in the city.

  16. Posted by ejay

    This is truly a pronominal house. Back in the late 90′s when I was in grad school my partner rented a teeny tiny studio a few houses away. At the time the owner threw a Christmas arty and we snuck in just to see the house – it was awesome then and still is. Wish I had the 1.8 mil.

  17. Posted by Trip

    This place is listed now. Only a few pics up.
    Hmm, I didn’t realize it only had two bedrooms. So it is a real party house. That changes the potential buyer class, but I’m not sure if it expands it or limits it. This is kind of a family neighborhood, but certainly not exclusively, and it is very close to quite a party neighborhood in the Castro (if less so than in the past).

  18. Posted by auden

    I like this place. anyone want to give me 1.85?

  19. Posted by SocketSite

    UPDATE (4/10): As a reader notes, 141 Beaver has been listed (and additional photos have been uploaded).

  20. Posted by GreenSpan

    this is a 1.5 bdrm house — a nice master and a baby pantry. the cool design and the view from the “media room” clearly make it special; but, the home is way better looking than it is functional.
    the best room to hang out in is a floor above the kitchen and right off the master. “media room”? it’s hard to imagine ever wanting to cover up all those beautiful windows with curtains for media watching. and how about that oven placement up a couple of steps into the breakfast room?
    the asking price is utterly delusional.

  21. Posted by garrett

    @ greenspan:
    you’re right on, 100%. as i noted above, the second bedroom is small and just off the kitchen and i think you’re right, may be better used as a large, walk-in pantry. the living/dining area are really nice though (in addition to the upstairs rooms) and master bedroom is super-sweet with unstoppable views. that said, the buyer is buying style, not functionality. the question is, how much is style worth, especially in this market? from my understanding, there have been upgrades to this house since it was purchased, but i can’t confirm what they are.

  22. Posted by chuckie

    “I think the place will fly off the market for above asking.”
    tipster, dollars to donuts, you’re wrong. :)

  23. Posted by ribmsb

    Ifyou think this place will fly for asking – you are nuts!!!!!!!!! you will be lucky to get 1.5 in this market and that will be generous. The only nice feature was the back garden.The upstairs is not very functional. it has one bathroom to share for two “almost” bedrooms. One of the bedrooms is designed with a hole in the wall and not very private. All of the ceiling look cheap with unfinished plywood.

  24. Posted by ma cherie

    This place is a stunner. It does have 3 functional bedrooms – one can easily be a bedroom or office. Its nice, cozy and stylistic. You have to have good taste to appreciate this place. Its not for old fashioned luddites. I am still bummed I lost my bid in 2002. I think its a steal at 1.85. There is a fountain as well in the backyard if I recall

  25. Posted by sanfrantim

    what’s not to like? In this market, however, potential buyers are primed to offer a little under and sellers prepared to accept a little less. I predict it sells quickly for bet. 1.75 and 1.8.

  26. Posted by auden

    I’m going to buy this place if it drops to 1.2 million. I don’t like my chances.

  27. Posted by Rocco

    This is a charming house, and despite the other comments, looks very 80′s to me. Probably because I lived through them.
    It’s still a one bedroom house- the upstairs is completely open- for almost $2M. And I’m not sure I want to climb in and out of that sunken tub everyday to shower.

  28. Posted by saylor

    A truly beautiful house. Is there another layer of roof rafters and insulation above the visible rafters? ah, the pre-Title 24 days…

  29. Posted by bru

    The roof has R9 rigid insulation over the exposed plywood. It was detailed in a way it does not show the over stack at the roofs edge. The house fully complies with the Title 24 from the times.

  30. Posted by sanfrantim

    The MLS link to this listing no longer works. Is 141 Beaver in contract already? removed? anyone know?

  31. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    No, it is not in contract, at least not according to cleanoffer. You can find it on the MLS still.

  32. Posted by umavytu

    I have heard a few offers already though – seems its getting competitive

  33. Posted by Trip

    Looks like this was withdrawn. Sold or just de-listed? I never did get over to see it.

  34. Posted by umavytu

    IT IS ACTIVE
    I JUST CHECKED

  35. Posted by 94114

    141 Beaver has been reduced $200,000.

  36. Posted by tipster

    So it’s listed at its 2002 price?

  37. Posted by Legacy Dude, channeling June Cleaver

    Ward, I’m a little worried about the Beaver.

  38. Posted by Trip

    Yes, 2002 price. Peak – 5 years. Guess those “few offers” that umavytu heard about were low-balls. Tough to sell a place these days in this price range. Not that many ready, willing, and able buyers now that the no/low-down money is gone.
    Funny, looks like 3 of the 4 other places for sale on Beaver that were not featured on SS are now in contract, while the 3 that were featured here are sitting. An SS curse?

  39. Posted by tipster

    Wow, 2003 went by so fast!
    I guess time, even going backwards, really does fly when you’re having fun.

  40. Posted by LMRiM

    At least that’s a respectable reduction for 141 Beaver. I don’t know the area so well, and so don’t really know the relative value here, but a greater than 10% reduction in wishing price seems well calculated to get some attention.
    About the price, it looks like the owner was “round tripped”. Rode the market up (presumably), and then straight down to where he’s lose capital on a 7 year hold. One could say the owner is rich enough not to care, and perhaps that’s true.

  41. Posted by garrett

    reduced to 1.65m

  42. Posted by 94114

    Garrett, you’re about 5 days late on that news.

  43. Posted by anonn

    Wow, 2003 went by so fast!
    I guess time, even going backwards, really does fly when you’re having fun.

    Yeah! Those 1.65M Castro 2 brs were really flyin off the shelves back in 2002, eh Tipster?

  44. Posted by chuckie

    Contingent… $200K cut in sales price a couple of weeks ago seems to have done the trick. No money went to heaven… only about $100K of the down payment moved into the pockets of the friendly, neighborhood real estate professionals where it will be put to good use buying shoes for the kids.

  45. Posted by anon

    Sold at $1,650,000. Back to 2002, and for a real top-end showpiece! So much for seven years of “building equity.”

  46. Posted by diemos

    Thank god they didn’t spend the last 7 years throwing money away on rent.

  47. Posted by LMRiM

    So, they only paid $20K+ per year in property taxes (maybe $140-150K total?), interest costs on a mortgage + maintenance costs that were undoubtedly higher than equivalent rent (even after adjusting for tax benefits), and then had to write a commission check for another roughly $80K just to get it sold. Sounds like they made out reasonably well, all things considered.

  48. Posted by anonn

    cue “pat self on back” gaggle of geese. cue yawn. cue suspicion at said gaggle actually feeling sour grapes over not buying in 2002.

  49. Posted by pica1986

    “cue “pat self on back” gaggle of geese. cue yawn. cue suspicion at said gaggle actually feeling sour grapes over not buying in 2002.”
    Cue wishing KenFlujAnonn would find some other hobby than stalking posters on Sockesite. Seriously, have you considered getting professional help?

  50. Posted by anon

    “cue suspicion at said gaggle actually feeling sour grapes over not buying in 2002″
    Ken, look up “sour grapes.” You do not comprehend the concept. These people bought in 2002 and saw not a penny of appreciation in 7 years! So they paid a huge multiple over renting, paying all the sums LMRiM notes. You mean “cue said gaggle thanking lucky stars they did not buy realtor spin and purchase in 2002.” Of course, it would have been far worse yet to have bought in 2005-2009.

  51. Posted by anonn

    1.65M 2 br = apocalypse. LOL. At least we agree on “gaggle.”

  52. Posted by anonn

    (By the way, if you are entertained by people saying the same people saying the same thing in the same way over and over again that is totally cool.)

  53. Posted by diemos

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

  54. Posted by LMRiM

    The Chomicle listed the sales price of 141 Beaver today at $1,591,500. So, the sellers – who purchased just about 7 years ago – are only out about $60K + the transaction costs when buying and selling. Maybe $110-120K all in?
    Not too bad – it really could have been a lot worse.

  55. Posted by San FronziScheme

    That’s only 4% less than the last sale!
    You guys who said the market was down 20% or more in good areas were WRONG!
    2002 you say? Well, everyone knows the market was flat from 2002 to 2007…
    Nothing to see there.

  56. Posted by steve

    I’m bear-ish on prices, but if you asked me to pick a property in 2002 (when I thought everything was overpriced) that would have maximum appreciation, I’m not sure this would have been it. It gets ++ for Noe but it has a condo-like amount of space and bedroom layout.
    In Palo Alto and Menlo Park, the houses that are moving at strong prices are the move-in condition 4/3s (and larger), no flaws. The only buyer in the market is the growing family, dual income, kid on the way.
    Surely, $1.65M can buy more space in the heart of Noe now that prices have eased?

  57. Posted by steve

    should have checked redfin for the answer to my own question before posing it. In Noe, there are two 4+/3+ listing under $1.75 and they are both contingent. (347 Clipper and 682 Clipper, an apple in the making)
    btw, 486 clipper may be another apple on the tree:
    Mar 26, 2009 Listed $2,095,000
    Oct 21, 2005 Sold $1,760,000
    (assuming the remodelling predates the 2005 sale. sorry for being lazy and not looking up the permits)

  58. Posted by Trip

    Well, so now we know the point of the asterisk on the MLS — to mask the fact that a really, really nice SFR just sold for 4% below the 2002 sale price. Can’t have that comp out there for all to see! Unless the MLS updates the sale price to reflect the publicly known information, it will truly have been revealed to be little more than a tool for fraud.

  59. Posted by San FronziScheme

    Steve,
    We’re a bit far from Noe there. It shares a Zip code with part of Noe but this area is Corona Heights. You do have to jump over Eureka Valley to get to Noe or what the maps tell you is Noe. Very desirable location though. Very typical but still its own charm. And if you’re lucky enough to have those views…

  60. Posted by steve

    fronzi, correct you are. not sure what I was thinking. however, in a strange way, my confusion re-enforces my point. obviously, every real sf buyer has a divine rate to 7% annual returns, but I still wouldn’t picked the property (and this locatoin) to overperform.

  61. Posted by unknown

    I hear this property will be back on the market soon

  62. Posted by Michael

    Fingers crossed – I love this house.

  63. Posted by anon

    This 1.5 br outlier of a house is way too small for the money now, in 2002, or whenever.

  64. Posted by erudite

    I have seen this house. Its poorly designed and very shoddily built. In fact the architecture is weird – must have had a strange architect. The original owners who bought in 2002 must have been very naive to touch this ticking time bomb

Add a Comment

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