October 16, 2009

A Peek Inside The "Party Of Five" House At 2311 Broadway

2311 Broadway

Plugged-in people knew it was coming soon, and as a reader notes, 2311 Broadway (a.k.a. the "Party of Five" house) is now officially here.

2311 Broadway: Foyer

Asking $7,280,000 for the seven bedrooms and five and one-half baths (which look to be in rather good shape). And it does appear to offer some rather nice views.

2311 Broadway: View

Once again, purchased for $5,400,000 in October 1999. And no, that party should (or would) not have had it so good.

∙ Listing: 2311 Broadway (7/5.5) - $7,280,000 [2311broadway.com] [MLS]
"Party Of Five" House (2311 Broadway) Coming Soon [SocketSite]

First Published: October 16, 2009 4:00 PM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

I have to admit, I kind of like it.... It's HUGE has 7(!) bedrooms, and looks in decent shape. I'm sure you could also get it a bit off-asking at sub-1000k per foot. I wonder if something is terribly wrong with it? Since it's a Joel Goodrich listing, I just assumed it would come on at 14.5 million.. :-)

Posted by: sleepiguy at October 16, 2009 12:51 PM

It's better than I was anticipating. I couldn't tell if it had an elevator or not from the pics, but it needs one. It's still a bit too choppy for me and is more of a family type home than an estate property. Not sure what will happen here. I think it will sell pretty quickly around asking. But this isn't where I'd put my money.

Posted by: eddy at October 16, 2009 1:43 PM

I guess they didn't end up renting it out?

[Editor's Note: You're probably thinking of 2712.]

Posted by: MichelleL at October 16, 2009 4:00 PM

Why does the "view" out the bedroom window appear higher-res than the rest of the photo?

Posted by: Joshua at October 16, 2009 4:26 PM

^ Are we really going to get into that? It's hard to take a shot of the bay from inside a house using the same exposure to highlight both interior furnishings and exterior views. It's easier to take a shot of the room, then of the bay and photoshop it in. Besides, if you use a flash, it has a tendency to bounce off the glass and blow out the view anyway. It's not misleading to cut and paste here. Is it amateur? Yes. Is it unethical, no.

Posted by: sleepiguy at October 16, 2009 4:35 PM

I agree that it's not worth beating the horse dead on the subject, but it is annoying to have the p-chopped images. The 12th photo on the VT page is a good example of a pit that highlights the interior and the exterior without trickery.

Overall, I think the staging and photos are very well done. I'm struggling with the 1999 purchase price on this home. Was the market for south side Broadway homes really this high in 1999?

Posted by: eddy at October 16, 2009 4:49 PM

And yes, the hallmark of a hard-working listing agent is present! The MLS listing says:

Style: Traditional
I really don't know what that means.

Would it kill Real Estate agents (sorry, Realtors (tm)) to consult their own site dedicated to descriptions of residential architectural styles when typing up a listing for the MLS? Or are most agents too busy for that low-level kind of detail thing and they leave that for the brokerage office administrative assistant? Inquiring minds want to know :-)

Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at October 16, 2009 8:53 PM

^ Well, I assume there's just a template and you can just check off what style you think fits the house best. I probably would've checked off "Victorian," but is it really a Victorian? It's been pretty heavily remodeled over the years and doesn't have much Victorian detail left on the interior (or exterior for that matter). So, sadly, the house no longer has a real style... It's just "traditional," which defines more what the house is not that what it actually is...

Posted by: sleepiguy at October 16, 2009 9:50 PM

Wow, that house is marvelous and huge!

I'd hate to be a person with a bum knee trying to walk up all those flights of stairs though!

Posted by: Financial Samurai at October 18, 2009 12:25 AM

Reduced to $6.95.

Posted by: eddy at December 2, 2009 11:45 AM


Posted by: eddy at February 3, 2010 1:53 PM

relisted at $6.7.. and 1 DOM...

Posted by: Geo at March 5, 2010 2:45 PM

Oh and showing contingent...

Posted by: Geo at March 5, 2010 2:45 PM

$5.4M in 1999 is $7.02M adjusted for inflation.

(usinflationcalculator.com, based on CPI and all of CPI's quirks)

Odd listing history. Is the goal just to say "sold at asking within 1 day" in the stats?

Posted by: Anon E. Mouse at March 5, 2010 3:10 PM

Don't think I've ever seen an In Escrow Firm price change but this place just dropped 50k off it's asking? odd

Posted by: eddy at March 19, 2010 7:32 PM

Sold Price: $6,550,000
Original Price: $6,700,000 -2% change
Real Original Price: $7,280,000 -11%

What is with the total and blatant withdrawal and re-listing on March 5th?

Posted by: eddy at April 5, 2010 6:28 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:

« San Francisco County Unemployment At 9.7 Percent In September | HOME | Glass Tower To Rise Over SF Mining Exchange Building On Bush »