April 9, 2009

141 Beaver: Let There Be Light And Air (And A Sweet Little Back Yard)

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]

First Published: April 9, 2009 9:30 AM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

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...

Posted by: Past perfect at April 9, 2009 9:38 AM

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.

Posted by: amused at April 9, 2009 9:42 AM

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

Posted by: chuckie at April 9, 2009 9:49 AM

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.

Posted by: garrett at April 9, 2009 9:51 AM

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.

Posted by: ex SF-er at April 9, 2009 10:08 AM

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...

Posted by: Geo at April 9, 2009 10:08 AM

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.

Posted by: chuckie at April 9, 2009 10:10 AM

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.

Posted by: tipster at April 9, 2009 10:12 AM

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!

Posted by: bernie lomax at April 9, 2009 10:13 AM

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).]

Posted by: San FronziScheme at April 9, 2009 10:22 AM

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.

Posted by: San FronziScheme at April 9, 2009 10:36 AM

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!

Posted by: rubber_chicken at April 9, 2009 11:14 AM

rubber_chicken,

Good point. I always thought this was a private staircase!

Indeed a great feature.

Posted by: San FronziScheme at April 9, 2009 11:39 AM

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.

Posted by: Trip at April 9, 2009 11:55 AM

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.

Posted by: Jim at April 9, 2009 1:31 PM

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.

Posted by: ejay at April 9, 2009 3:52 PM

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).

Posted by: Trip at April 9, 2009 5:10 PM

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

Posted by: auden at April 9, 2009 11:23 PM

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

Posted by: SocketSite at April 10, 2009 7:33 AM

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.

Posted by: GreenSpan at April 10, 2009 8:10 AM

@ 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.

Posted by: garrett at April 10, 2009 8:25 AM

"I think the place will fly off the market for above asking."

tipster, dollars to donuts, you're wrong.

:)

Posted by: chuckie at April 10, 2009 8:26 AM

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.

Posted by: ribmsb at April 10, 2009 8:33 AM

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

Posted by: ma cherie at April 10, 2009 9:14 AM

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.

Posted by: sanfrantim at April 10, 2009 11:01 AM

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

Posted by: auden at April 10, 2009 1:12 PM

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.

Posted by: Rocco at April 10, 2009 1:46 PM

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

Posted by: saylor at April 14, 2009 12:03 PM

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.

Posted by: bru at April 18, 2009 7:28 AM

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

Posted by: sanfrantim at April 28, 2009 5:35 PM

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

Posted by: NoeValleyJim at April 29, 2009 12:07 AM

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

Posted by: umavytu at May 3, 2009 10:45 AM

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

Posted by: Trip at May 11, 2009 6:45 AM

IT IS ACTIVE

I JUST CHECKED

Posted by: umavytu at May 11, 2009 10:42 AM

141 Beaver has been reduced $200,000.

Posted by: 94114 at May 28, 2009 10:36 AM

So it's listed at its 2002 price?

Posted by: tipster at May 28, 2009 10:51 AM

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

Posted by: Legacy Dude, channeling June Cleaver at May 28, 2009 10:55 AM

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?

Posted by: Trip at May 28, 2009 11:11 AM

Wow, 2003 went by so fast!

I guess time, even going backwards, really does fly when you're having fun.

Posted by: tipster at May 28, 2009 11:51 AM

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.

Posted by: LMRiM at May 28, 2009 11:56 AM

reduced to 1.65m

Posted by: garrett at June 2, 2009 3:07 PM

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

Posted by: 94114 at June 2, 2009 3:11 PM

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?

Posted by: anonn at June 2, 2009 7:05 PM

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.

Posted by: chuckie at June 12, 2009 9:02 AM

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

Posted by: anon at July 12, 2009 9:48 AM

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

Posted by: diemos at July 12, 2009 9:57 AM

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.

Posted by: LMRiM at July 12, 2009 10:07 AM

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

Posted by: anonn at July 12, 2009 11:59 AM

"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?

Posted by: pica1986 at July 12, 2009 12:20 PM

"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.

Posted by: anon at July 12, 2009 12:55 PM

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

Posted by: anonn at July 12, 2009 2:35 PM

(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.)

Posted by: anonn at July 12, 2009 2:45 PM

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Posted by: diemos at July 12, 2009 3:08 PM

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.

Posted by: LMRiM at July 27, 2009 7:09 PM

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.

Posted by: San FronziScheme at July 27, 2009 7:16 PM

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?

Posted by: steve at July 27, 2009 7:31 PM

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)

Posted by: steve at July 27, 2009 7:40 PM

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.

Posted by: Trip at July 27, 2009 9:20 PM

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...

Posted by: San FronziScheme at July 27, 2009 10:03 PM

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.

Posted by: steve at July 27, 2009 10:50 PM

I hear this property will be back on the market soon

Posted by: unknown at May 24, 2010 1:35 PM

Fingers crossed - I love this house.

Posted by: Michael at May 24, 2010 1:49 PM

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

Posted by: anon at May 24, 2010 6:14 PM

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

Posted by: erudite at July 9, 2010 4:09 PM

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:

« A Step Forward For The Plans To Expand Fox Plaza (1390 Market) | HOME | San Francisco's City Attorney Sues Short-Term Rental Scofflaws »