15 Surrey Street: Rendering
Listed for $995,800 this past October touting “READY to brake (sic) ground,” the 625 square foot one bedroom home at 15 Surrey with approved plans to become an “over 2800″ square foot four-bedroom/three and one-half bath Glen Park view home has returned to the market asking $895,800.
The clock is now ticking, however, as the new listing notes: “permits issued.” Keep in mind that the permits are technically for a “remodel” of the current property including a vertical and horizontal addition of 1,800 square feet (no word on what would appear to be an unaccounted for 375 square feet).
Once again, purchased for $731,000 in 2007 prior to said plans, approvals and permits. Kudos to the listing agent for including a photo of the current façade this time around.
15 Surrey Current Facade
∙ Listing: 15 Surrey (1/1) – $895,800 [MLS]
Suspended Disbelief (And Renderings) For 15 Surrey [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by geekgrrl

    Ummm, according to Redfin it was purchased in 2007 for $731k, not 2003.
    I can’t fathom paying $900k for an unlivable shack that will require a minimum of $500k worth of work that will easily take 18 months to complete.
    [Editor's Note: Good catch, correctly dated in our original post last October and since corrected above. Cheers.]

  2. Posted by Gee Ess

    As a homeowner with renovations in-progress, I can tell you the plans don’t mean crap, and it’s laughable to see sellers try to pass them off as something truly valuable by massively inflating the list price on their account. I’ve seen this a few times in listings and it always makes me laugh.
    The labor and fees for design and drawings, plus the permits, can vary a lot but for a job this size is probably on the order of tens of thousands of dollars (maybe 35k, say). Their true value is, at best, a very slight premium over the value of the existing home to a new owner, because there are also plenty of drawbacks to using plans you weren’t involved with creating.

  3. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Hmmm… so the owner thinks that this unimproved home has increased in value by 23% since 2007 ? I think that he/she forgot to punch the +/- button on their calculator.

  4. Posted by mikey woodz

    Yea the [owner/agent] thinks this thing is now worth 23% over its 2007 value, and this is why? Because of their mediocre rough plans?? 35k is being generous in estimating the cost of these plans/permits and honestly most people would want to change them. And even at $350 sq ft (Which building on this slope would probably likely surpase, the build costs would be 1mil with no carrying costs/property tax etc. So over 700 sq/ft to take the risk and carry here for Glen Park….I dont think so

  5. Posted by noearch

    For the most part Gee Ess is correct in saying that the “spec” plans are of little value to the actual future owner. These plans most likely do not reflect the way a family or owner may want to live in that particular house.
    More accurate would be the construction costs at around $375-400/sf for this type of site and property: or approx: $815-870k for construction. Add in approx. 10-12% for architectural and engineering fees, plus permits brings it up to a more realistic cost.

  6. Posted by AmICrazy

    Am I misunderstanding this?
    $731,000 in 2007 for this property would conservatively go for $650,000 in 2010. So you’d be paying $250,000 over this price for the privilege of permits, the costs of removing the debris and the inconvenience of construction?

  7. Posted by Mike L

    Donate the property and take the benefit….

  8. Posted by lol

    Current sellers got in at the top, gave up on the project and are still trying to get out with cash on hand. Who wouldn’t? And yes, they obviously know how to use a calculator, otherwise they would have proceeded with the project.
    Let another sucker waste his time and money in the slow-motion Japan deflation redux. There is more than enough stupid money in SF to make these sellers whole, imho, and maybe see this project to completion. Not so sure about where prices will be then, though…

  9. Posted by EH

    I bet I could turn this into a sweet-ass 2/2 for less. Is it actually uninhabitable?

  10. Posted by Anon E. Mouse

    These guys are totally looking for a bigger chump, because they’ve done nothing that justifies $164K above their peak time purchase purchase. Does this really become a $1.9M house after construction? (based on noearch’s approx $1M cost listed above)
    Btw, editor, minor correction, but this is listed for $895,800, not $859,000. It’s $100K off their prior price.

  11. Posted by geekgrrl

    @Gee Ess
    I hear you, we’re doing remodeling right now and the plans have been re-drawn several times for some parts as the contractor discovers issues in the field.
    @mikey woodz @noearch
    I definitely agree with your higher assessments on build costs. I came in low at $500k because I’m assuming the only person who would possibly be interested in taking on the burden of “remodeling” this property would be a contractor who would do the work themselves.

  12. Posted by Anon E. Mouse

    You know, it’d be helpful if I didn’t make a typo when trying to point one out.

  13. Posted by nowonderitcostssomuchhere

    There are signs of life on that property – so I doubt it’s uninhabitable. But then again, I haven’t been inside!
    This street is awesome though. It’s very quiet, close to the village. It has underground power (oh I’m so jealous of that!), and the neighbors are all really nice people who seem to like to socialize. They had a big block party last weekend which looked like fun.

  14. Posted by SocketSite

    The list price for 15 Surrey has just been reduced $45,850 (5%), now asking $849,950.

  15. Posted by SocketSite

    The list price for 15 Surrey has just been reduced another $51,150 (6%), now asking $798,800.

  16. Posted by SocketSite

    The list price for 15 Surrey has just been reduced another $48,912 (6%), now asking $749,888.

  17. Posted by sfrenegade

    You mean $749,888 (the math was right). That means you are still paying $18,888 for the remodel plans on a 2007 bubble price for a teardown, which sounds questionable.
    This house is cross-listed on both SFAR and Peninsula MLS, so maybe they’re trying to catch the Googlers or what have you. The bulls will also say “they overpaid,” since this was listed at $665K back in the day, but good to see this coming back to earth.
    [Editor's Note: Good catch and since corrected.]

  18. Posted by anon.ed

    The bulls would say that. So would most people who understand SFRE. Buying a fixer in that part of GP, without entitlements, for 730K? Come on now.

  19. Posted by tipster

    Ha ha! Back on at $600K.

  20. Posted by sfrenegade

    Someone predicted a developer would take this for $800K on one of the old threads. There was also a neighbor who was prepared to NIMBYfy this to death.
    Nice front yard, btw. Surrey without a fringe on top.

Add a Comment

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