31 21st Avenue
Asking $1,500,000 a year ago, the list price for 31 21st Avenue was reduced to $999,000 this past November (by way of a few incremental cuts). The listing was then withdrawn from the MLS this past February with just over nine months on the market.
The cute Victorian cottage was listed anew three days ago asking $999,000 (once again).
∙ Listing: 31 21st Avenue (1/2) – $999,000 [MLS]

22 thoughts on “31 21st Avenue: No New Cut (Other Than To Its Days On The Market)”
  1. I’m assuming this is really a lot for sale that happens to have a small cottage on top of it? Priced to be a tear-down rebuild?

  2. Probably a lot split somewhere along the line. $1M. Not sure. Cute place. I’d leave it as is and just build a new 2 story right over it and this could be the kids play house. 🙂

  3. The assessor has this as 864 square feet. It looks like they finished part of the basement so add in another 150 or so and this is only around 1000 square feet.
    The only value here is a possible second story as the property has a legislated 22′ front setback (i.e. you can’t build in front) and is zoned RH-1 so it has a 25% required rear yard (and not much of one).

  4. the house itself is so thin though. I’d rather tear down/rebuild rather than trying to work around that very awkward layout.

  5. This site would be so much more user friendly if square footage data appeared in every post. Then we could sift through the sensationalist headlines more easily. This thing was never worth $1.5, so what’s the point?

  6. This site would be so much more user friendly if square footage data appeared in every post. Then we could sift through the sensationalist headlines more easily. This thing was never worth $1.5, so what’s the point?

  7. That’s funny tipster. I think you would also have the historical society police on you if you tried to build on this lot. It was pre 1906 earthquake build and it is a Victorian. While I like Victorians, I don’t think they are so special that they shouldn’t be able to be modified.

  8. Based on what tj said, even “lot value” is hard to estimate because the lot is so restricted. Also, your next door neighbor will probably complain if you build up, since it’d cover up their window.
    Cute house though. Doesn’t look like many teardowns I’ve seen.
    “This site would be so much more user friendly if square footage data appeared in every post.”
    MLS would be much more user-friendly if square footage data appeared in every listing.

  9. boy, sure looks like a couple of earthquake shacks stuck end to end with a bay in the back and the L expansion in the rear.

  10. @corntrollio: I totally agree… it would be wonderful if MLS required square footage data. On this site it just seems irresponsible/lazy not to report it upfront, especially on the frequent posts about condos in SOMA towers. There are headlines about 30% price drops from peak (no debate there), but frequently I have to delve into the comments to see that people are still paying $700-$800 psf for many of these units!

  11. One of the issues regarding square footage reports for a property like this is that not all of the rooms may be “legal”. So if you report all of the legal+unpermitted square footage you could get sued. If you report just legal footage then the house looks like a bad value.
    The third option is to report nothing and let buyers scope it out for themselves. That and post photos show with an extra-wide angle lens to make the place look 50% bigger to untrained eyes.

  12. square footage postings are, unfortunately, a lawsuit waiting to happen…hence, nobody wants to list them and YOU, the consumer, loses again…eh, its ok, you weren’t going to buy anything anyway.

  13. You could not tear it down, but you could remodel the hell out of it. Although the historic preservationists would be very interested in this project, you definitely could build up as long as it’s deemed compatible – lot’s of hoops, public noticing, etc. to jump through, but definitely doable.
    The 22′ front setback, likely the result of historic preservation concerns, is for this and several adjacent lots (3 I believe) – this property is at one end of the series.
    The lot size by the way is about 25×120, fairly standard for the area, so you would need to retain a 30′ rear yard. Like I said, going up is really your only option, but you could also expand to the full width of the lot as there is no side yard setback for RH-1.

  14. “square footage postings are, unfortunately, a lawsuit waiting to happen”
    People love saying things like this because they like to imagine that lots of frivolous lawsuits actually go far in court, but there’s no reason CAR couldn’t lobby for a law that protects realtors from good faith square footage disclosures except in cases of outright fraud. CAR is happier keeping people in the dark, so they don’t lobby for such a rule.

  15. I think this place is rather cute. Not $1m cute, mind you. But that’s just due to the location.
    What would the resident architects do to this place?

  16. Reading comments above about how one could remodel or add square footage to this particular historical property, my first question is “why”? Why this property? Why try to change the stripes on this zebra? Why not find a property with less restrictions and more options unless you like challenges and battles? I say love it or leave it. If there is a realistic reason why it would be worth all of the hassles, please enlighten me.

Leave a Reply

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