September 2, 2009
"Party Of Five" House (2311 Broadway) Coming Soon
From a plugged-in tipster with respect to 2311 Broadway:
Seems the "Party of Five" house [at 2311 Broadway] is about to make it's debut on the MLS. Great house, great address, apparently GREAT for an acting career - Neve Cambell, Jeniffer Love Hewitt, Matthew Fox.
It's unfortunate that after all those stairs there is no view to speak of.... But maybe you can hear the 'ghost whisper' of TweenDrama's past.
Purchased for $5,400,000 in October 1999, no word as of yet of what they’ll be asking ten years later. And unfortunately nobody over here ever watched the "Party," so we’re struggling with an appropriately themed headline. Readers?
∙ Party of Five [wikipedia.org]
First Published: September 2, 2009 8:30 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Well, if they ever do a price reduction, you surely can use "Closer to Free" as the headline.
Posted by: Mike B at September 2, 2009 8:50 AM
Worth every penny if the seller includes Neve Campbell, Jennifer Love Hewitt and Lacey Chabert.
Posted by: Fishchum at September 2, 2009 9:05 AM
No clue on sqft or condition so I'm going to venture a guess at 950 psf list, 900 psf sell. Probably somewhere around $6.5 ask / 5.9 sell -- totally blind. Will refine once I have more information. I could easily be 750k over on my estimates considering some of the recent comps.
Posted by: eddy at September 2, 2009 9:13 AM
Good one, Mike B.
I wonder how the Salinger kids all did with their 1M each after the sale? Claudia was my favorite.
Posted by: kthnxybe at September 2, 2009 9:15 AM
Use the title "this house is a wonderland" in honor of Jennifer Love Hewitt's post Party of Five life.
Posted by: D at September 2, 2009 11:48 AM
I keep picturing the Victorian that was used for the show staring John Stamos as Jesse and Bob Saget as Danny. Late 80's. Can't think of the name of that show, but it was supposed to be in one of the "painted ladies", no?
I must have never seen an episode of "Party of Five".
Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at September 2, 2009 12:08 PM
Full House, which was indeed a painted lady.
Posted by: joh at September 2, 2009 12:12 PM
Actually, the house from Full House was 1709 Broderick Street. The "Painted Ladies" were just in the background of picnic scene in the opening credits. I know because it seems that every time I have out of town guests, they want to see the Full House house!
Posted by: Anon at September 2, 2009 1:12 PM
So the "Party of 5" is in reference to some show ? Was that filmed in this house ??
I've never heard of that show until I saw the link to it here.
Should I start watching Faux News now ?
Posted by: Chad at September 2, 2009 1:47 PM
Party of 5 was a show in which 5 kids, ages 10-20 or so, were on their own trying to run a household and the family business. It was 100% angst - everything bad happened to them. The 20 year old even got cancer, as if that were a common occurrence. The business struggled and they always had problems with it. Stuff broke at the house and they had no money. Every week many, many bad things happened. Bad, bad things. I had to suffer through that show with an ex-girlfriend, who needed to watch every show.
Like a lot of TV shows, one day a camera crew came out and took some file footage of the house and for many years, one of those shots were occasionally weaved in the show to make you think it was filmed at that house. The show was actually filmed in a studio. The actors probably only saw the house once, to take some shots for the opening credits of the show.
Posted by: tipster at September 2, 2009 2:10 PM
Chad, stop screaming so much in all your posts... we can hear you just fine.
I remember "Too Close for Comfort" back in the day as being the first to use the SF Victorian house exterior (across from BV Park) in its opening credits. Lydia Cornell ....mmmm.
Posted by: nnona at September 2, 2009 2:14 PM
Tipster - to add to your post - the kids parents were killed in an auto accident by a drunk driver, leaving the eldest (Matthew Fox, of "Lost") as the guardian. The kids ran the family restaurant ("Salinger's", I believe) and were involved in a myriad of family problems.
As dramas went it wasn't awful - my wife was a devout follower, and if not for for Neve Campbell and Jennifer Love Hewitt, I probably would have gotten some reading done.
They did most of the filming in a studio, although they did do some scenes in and around SF to lend some credibility to the show.
Posted by: Fishchum at September 2, 2009 2:30 PM
The most shameless "faux" location is "Psych". It is supposed to be shot in Santa Barbara but all exterior shots are actually BC, Canada. The worst of the worst is when they're at sea showing a coastline with no palm trees.
Not. Even. Close.
Posted by: San FronziScheme at September 2, 2009 4:43 PM
Thanks nnona :)
Posted by: Chad at September 2, 2009 7:22 PM
JLH is single again, Fishchum, she's out there for you somewhere.
Posted by: tipster at September 2, 2009 11:26 PM
Speaking of Full House, I was just trying to explain to a Canadian friend that those people would never have lived in a painted lady. They're more of a mid-Sunset family.
Posted by: kthnxybe at September 3, 2009 9:43 AM
In other "Full House" news, the Bob Saget Roast was on Comedy Central last night. Man. The humor was blue, blue, and more blue. Pretty funny tho.
Posted by: anonn at September 3, 2009 10:02 AM
I always thought there was something funny about these kids who were struggling to get by living in an SF Victorian that must have been worth at least a million even back then. Same thing with Full House. Are people in other parts of the country really so naive about Bay Area real estate values?
Posted by: slobone at September 3, 2009 1:23 PM
kthnxybe, I COMPLETELY agree! I am always saying this to people, and they think I'm being snooty, but I'm not, lol. It's just that there are different types of families one sees in each individual SF neighborhood, and they seem like a mid-Sunset sort of family.
Posted by: Chloe at September 3, 2009 1:49 PM
Are people in other parts of the country really so naive about Bay Area real estate values?
Are people in the Bay Area really so naive to pay a million for an uncomfortable old relic? The naivety is in the eye of the beholder :-)
Posted by: anon3 at September 3, 2009 2:03 PM
The Party of 5 theam song started with...'Everybody wants to live...like they wanna live...'
Seems pretty fitting for a home sale...
Posted by: RA at September 3, 2009 4:02 PM
Another really terrible one is the companion show to Psych--Monk. They're supposed to be in San Francisco, and it couldn't be more obvious that it's completely Los Angeles--which looks noooooothing like SF. I think they've come up once or twice for outside shots, but it's very rare.
Posted by: Chloe at September 3, 2009 10:36 PM
Monk is filmed in Vancouver. It's an amazing show that substantially improved the fortunes of the USA network, winning 5 Emmys a SAG and a Golden Globe. Psych is a (not so good) spinoff, winning nothing AFAIK.
Posted by: Robert at September 3, 2009 11:07 PM
No way, they are definitely a Potrero HIll family.
Mid-Sunset, not hip enough. I know how to prove it.
We could make Jeep Wranglers per capita in each
neighborhood to prove it.
Posted by: Artdoggie at September 4, 2009 2:03 AM
Agree with Robert -- Monk is a great show. It's better than the run of the mill detective show and more clever too. Good writing, and Tony Shalhoub plays the part well.
Posted by: corntrollio at September 4, 2009 8:46 AM
Psych is a spinoff of Monk? (The exteriors on Monk are laughable too.)
Posted by: anonn at September 4, 2009 8:52 AM
Anyone know anything about this house? number of bedrooms? any updating? Any clue as to when it will officially be on the market?
Posted by: Bonbon at September 4, 2009 11:12 AM
So do “famous” houses like this list with showing restrictions like bona fide buyers only, listing agent must be present, no lock box…, and no chance of an open house or even being on caravan?
Or is it better to get more foot traffic even though it could become a tourist destination?
And no I have no desire to see the place, just general curiosity.
Posted by: Billy at September 4, 2009 11:48 AM
From 10-60 to 8-61 I rented a room at 2311 Broadway for $42.50 a month. It was on the second floor and on the east side. Had a large marble sink and a dumbwaiter which I believe still worked. Bath facilities were down the hall (shared). It was a pleasant place to live--quiet and clean. Apparently the building had been converted during World War II and the owners were under considerable pressure to re-convert.
No millionaires lived there. (I was a copyboy at the SF Examiner.
Posted by: Duane Sanger at September 6, 2009 4:08 PM
You don't think Potrero would have been too expensive for them? I mean, they did live in over-crowded conditions.
Also, they always struck me as more mainstream than hip. But then again I've never seen a whole episode.
Posted by: kthnxybe at September 6, 2009 4:39 PM
Interesting comment, Duane. Using the consumer price index option on Measuring Worth, that would have been about $309.00 today. I don't think even the most hard up student in a crowded roommate situation has rent that low anywhere in the Bay Area nowadays, or do they? Maybe as a share in a rent-controlled place where a core group has been in there for years?
Which brings up something I have been wondering about when people are talking about what "the bottom" should really be in terms of what things are "really worth" or "1996 plus inflation" or whatever. What is the perceived value of city living now as opposed to ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty years ago? That more people want to live in cities than they did a generation ago seems clear, and American cities seem, except for pockets of organized crime/gang activity, to be considered cleaner, safer and more convenient than they used to be.
Obviously when you get down to it, "worth" is meaningless and there is only what people are willing to pay, but I'm just curious what sort of inflator people would put on housing now compared to the 1960's in various SF neighborhoods, in addition to general inflation of consumer goods or percentage of unskilled wage.
Posted by: kthnxybe at September 6, 2009 4:53 PM
Psst -- kthnxybe:
You can see that in 1960, rents in SF were cheaper than in the state as a whole. They peaked in 2000.
However, in terms of income, since 1980 people have consistently been paying 1/4 of their income for rent in SF, with very little change, so at least in that time frame, changing rents were more a reflection of higher incomes than being willing to pay more, proportionally, to live here.
Posted by: Robert at September 6, 2009 5:32 PM
It's either being staged, or the staging is being moved out...
Posted by: sleepiguy at October 5, 2009 12:03 PM
It's on the market. Looks nice, a bit choppy. View from the bedroom window looks photo shopped. Should be interesting to see where this closes. There are 2 north side homes in late stage renovations. Feature site at www.2311broadway.com
Floor plans available. Just click where is asks to contact agent and it will launch a PDF.
Posted by: eddy at October 16, 2009 11:34 AM
I lived across the street from this home (formerly owned by Jack Selway I think). It is a popular neighborhood: Francis Ford Coppola used to live in house next door to this one (it was sold to Jessica McClintock). At the corner on Steiner is the house used for Mrs. Doubtfire. Across the street was an Ananda retreat, and next to that was Victor's famous Teddy Bear house (Christmas windows filled with teddy bears and lights).
Fond Memories of the 2300 block of Broadway!
Posted by: Neighbor at November 11, 2009 9:42 PM
I've been in that house many times and I assure you that there is a view! from the fourth floor there is a sprawling view of the bay the golden gate bridge the bay bridge and the richmond bridge. the view and that house are stunning.
Posted by: maybes baby at August 22, 2010 12:18 AM