February 12, 2010

Apples To Apples To Apples (And 100% Financing) For 2312 Gough

2312 Gough

Purchased for $3,000,000 in May 2000, the Pacific Heights Victorian at 2312 Gough sold for $2,600,000 in July 2004 with 100% financing (assuming PropertyShark is correct). In September 2006 the the property was refinanced with a $2,630,000 note. And in 2010 it's back on the market and asking $2,595,000.

∙ Listing: 2312 Gough (4/3.5) 3,968 sqft - $2,595,000 [MLS]

First Published: February 12, 2010 1:00 AM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

This appears to be a good example of how prices are a function of how much free and loose money is sloshing around. May 2000 was just after the dot com bomb. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the 2000 buyer had just cashed in his chips in 1999.

Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at February 12, 2010 7:57 AM

Editor, Great play by play on the financing. For those of you keeping track at home, it was, of course, WaMu.

Posted by: EBGuy at February 12, 2010 11:19 AM

This is a little Victorian house that was raised and greatly expanded. It has an odd location between a big apartment uphill and a house odd shaped below. It was always surprising that it fetched its price, starting at about $2m when it was first fixed up, I think.

Posted by: Conifer at February 12, 2010 12:31 PM

Then basically someone rented the house from WaMu but paid a high variable rent, paid the property taxes, maintained the place, etc...

Where can I find someone like that? I need a good soul to subsidize my lifestyle!

Posted by: wow at February 12, 2010 1:02 PM

"It was always surprising that it fetched its price"

At almost 4000 square feet, the price has been in line with the location and condition. But when the local owners start trying to talk up the prior purchase price as "surprising" (as Satchel once said, "the buyer overpaid - it happens!"), look out below for the final sale price on this place.

Posted by: tipster at February 12, 2010 1:08 PM

Ha. Whatever. As if 2004 wasn't a more expensive market than 2000. Man do you ever stretch to talk down every single thing that comes down the pike.

Posted by: anonn at February 12, 2010 2:11 PM

$3.0M in 2000 = $3.74M in 2009 (31% real/13.5% nominal drop)
$2.6M in 2004 = $2.95M in 2009 (12% real/0% nominal drop)

This price range performed slightly differently than less lofty ranges if you look at the data. The 2001 peak of the First Republic Prestige Index hit $2.395M which is around $2.9M in 2009: http://www.firstrepublic.com/lend/residential/prestigeindex/sanfrancisco.html

In any case, free money appears to be the deciding factor, whether via IPO or easy credit.

all inflation-adjusted numbers calculated using http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
(2010 data will be available next week)

Posted by: Anon E. Mouse at February 12, 2010 3:50 PM

They've been renting this out occasionally for special events. Weird I know, but true.

Posted by: mikey at February 12, 2010 6:51 PM

It's also across the street from the LDS Church. I'm not sure how Mormons affect property values in SF...Maybe we should commission a study?

Anyway, the house is cute, but the location is all kinds of horrible. I'm surprised it sold for 3 in 00...

Posted by: sleepiguy at February 12, 2010 7:00 PM

sleepiguy, apparently not too much as 1896 Pacific, the big apartment building next door, has a penthouse for sale for over $4mill (not that they'll sell it for that much, lol, but still a lot).

Posted by: dema at February 12, 2010 7:53 PM

"Hugh Remodeled Victorian - almost 4000, Move in"

I'm trying to decipher this. Did Hugh remodel this house on his own? Is he nearing the 4K mark? Would this be some sort of record?

Posted by: FAA at February 12, 2010 11:13 PM

from the listing: "Elegantly furnished living room"

Are the furnishing included? Lot's wrong with those whole place starting with location. But add this to the list of $2-3M places in PH. 2921 Jackson st in also in escrow. Can't wait to see the final price on that home. Orig @ 2.75, reduced to $2.679> I'm guessing below $2.5 and maybe $2.4.

This place I suspect will not sell but I'd guess the market price is around $2.1-$2.2.

Posted by: eddy at February 14, 2010 11:21 AM

This is a great house and there should be no problem finding a buyer given the size and location.

Posted by: PacHits at February 16, 2010 12:42 PM

2921 Jackson sold for $2.6. I estimate this home needs ~300k so I'm a bit surprised it went for this much.

Posted by: eddy at March 24, 2010 6:00 PM

Was the Jackson home ever on the MLS?

Posted by: sleepiguy at March 24, 2010 6:43 PM

Yes. MLS#: 363403

Posted by: eddy at March 25, 2010 9:50 AM

Speaking of 1896 Pacific Ave; 1P closed at $3.6M, down 28% from its ask; but still $1325/psf. Not too shabby.

Posted by: eddy at April 7, 2010 3:45 PM

2921 Jackson has some permanent problems, such as the original two-flat architecture, the sense of being very boxed in by the buildings on either side, and the small footprint. It also does not have the grand south view that would be expected on this block. Then there are some mere cosmetic problems such an an iron handrail from the first to second floor, and an unappealing new glass front door.
The selling price reveals a strengthening market, but it also that you can still buy a nice family home in PacHts for well under $3.
They already have workers there.

Posted by: Conifer at April 7, 2010 4:40 PM

I thought 2921 was a disaster and it would have been hard to 'move-in'. They are going to be well over $3m when all said and done. But I do agree that you can easily get into PH/PrH for under 3.

Posted by: eddy at April 7, 2010 5:27 PM

After 112 days on the market without a sale, the MLS listing for 2312 Gough Street has expired without a sale.

Posted by: SocketSite at June 1, 2010 1:49 PM

BOM @ $2,595,000 and 0 DOM.

Posted by: eddy at October 15, 2010 2:22 PM

BOM REO @ $2.142. 28% off its 2000 price. Oh what a difference one decade makes without all that phony dot com money!

Posted by: tipster at February 23, 2011 7:40 PM

It's certainly got a better chance at selling now assuming the bank will play ball here.

Posted by: eddy at February 24, 2011 4:15 AM

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:

« Would The Real Top Chef San Francisco House Please Stand Up? | HOME | New Designs For Dwellings (And Retail) At Market And Sanchez »