Purchased for $775,000 in January of 2006 and suffering from “a series of unpermitted alterations and years of neglect,” 255 Moultrie underwent a half-million dollar transformation by and for Studio S Squared Architecture’s Eugene Sakai.
By carefully preserving the front façade and opening up the floor plan to a full lot width, sun-drenched great room in the rear, the redesign retained the historic character of the Victorian while modernizing it for today’s lifestyles. The great room is designed as the functional heart of the house, and overlooks a modestly-sized, yet function-packed backyard designed and installed by a local landscape contractor.
A completely new foundation created room for a two car tandem garage and 600 s.f. of additional living space, and brought the house up to current seismic code. A modest [600 square foot] addition and change in roof pitch at the rear helped transform the cramped 2 bedroom, 1 bath house into a spacious, three-level 4 bedroom, 3.5 bath home with separate office, dining, and laundry rooms.
Back on the market today and asking $1,295,000, the listing does note “Architect’s luxury residence!” but doesn’t name the name.
∙ Listing: 255 Moultrie (4/3.5) 2,371 sqft – $1,295,000 [MLS]
∙ Studio S Squared: Moultrie Street Victorian [studios2arch.com]
After all that remod expense they forgot to put the fireplace beneath the flatscreen TV. 🙂
Nice looking end product though I wonder whether the way that little nook in photo 24/31 was staged can really be used as a desk space.
I’ll be somewhat surprised if this goes for $1.3M. Its on the south side, and not super close to the top of the hill. The house on Montcalm listed at $1.5M is in a much nicer location and hasn’t moved. I haven’t seen either, and I’m often wrong, so who knows.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/211-Montcalm-St-94110/home/12226747
If they actually spent $500K on the remodel, they aren’t making anything. The biggest problem is that this house seems to suffer from “most expensive house in the neighborhood” syndrome in south Bernal.
Love that the “Make Me Move” price on Zillow is $1.75M — what a joke. Even that modern remodel in north Bernal isn’t listed for that.
1.75M? They’d better correct that. This looks messy.
Bernal still sells at a high price for the quality of life you get there. But the time when flippers could warranty price(A+B) = price(A)+price(B)+Huge Profit is gone. Only pros with access to low cost of construction should try that.
Gosh that house is strange looking.
I think socketsite should start a list of cloying phrases used by real estate brokers. I do not expect or want literary excellence in listings, but they should avoid the excesses that are conspicuously irritating to an educated person.
I would like to nominate with:
1. “sun-drenched” or “bathed in light”
2. “complete” this floor
I am sure the listers can think of many others.
This could be fun:
– “lavish urban retreat”, sounds like you are going to the Betty Ford Clinic or something
– “understated elegance” means cheap
– “tranquil sanctuary” means dark and at the back of the house
Every time I look at that chandelier (photo 2/31) I cannot help but think I’m looking at a web page that is busy loading.
This place is smack in the middle of an area I call the “Burn-all hill tinderbox” because it seems prime to succumb to a post-quake firestorm due to its density, slope, narrow streets. I sure hope that I’m wrong.
“cozy” = too small to actually live in
“pied a terre” = ditto
“sharpen your pencils” = POS
“original splendor” = not updated
“newer appliances” = old appliances
“luxurious” = gaudy
Conifer wrote:
Hmm…we probably don’t have to go far too find at least one other nominee. From the MLS listing (linked-to above):
My personal pet peeve is the phrase Zen garden, because…well I’ll just quote the The Journal Of Japanese Gardening since it’s so lucid:
With respect to phrases that are “conspicuously irritating to an educated person”, note that the listing real estate agent, holds both the “Bsc, MA” degrees, as described on the brokerage web site, which begs the question, “What in?”
cracks me up, call it a Victorian yet apparently built in 1910. Typical gable roof south side bernal heights post earthquake working class bungalow. silk purse out of sow’s ear stuff.
I hate “stunningly charming”. If something is charming, it shouldn’t stun you.
“Up and coming” = Ghetto area
“blank canvas” = teardown
I love all the different ways to say No Updates!
“Good Bones” = Teardown. No Updates.
“Pride of Ownership” = Same owner since 1950. No Updates.
“Classic Victorian” = Small rooms, 1 bathroom. No Updates.
“Let your imagination run wild!” = Teardown. No Updates.
I could go on all day…
Those are good ones Jason. perfect. I agree.
Some more of my faves:
“bring your contractors” = total dump
“lot value”= even worse than total dump
“needs your personal touch” = former owner was a psycho
“Good freeway access” = hiding behind a soundwall
“classic San Francisco building” = cold and drafty
On a separate note…can we PLEASE only mention the terms “stainless steel” and granite counters” if the property DOES NOT have these features!!! Imagine the space we could save in the listings!
I can’t believe no one has posted this classic Simpsons quote:
% Lionel Hutz gets out a realty catalogue with photographs of houses in it to show Marge how to do things the Red Blazer way.
[Lionel shows Marge a realty catalogue. The first featured house is extremely small.]
Marge: It’s awfully small…
Lionel: I’d say it’s awfully.. cozy!
Marge: That’s dilapidated…
Lionel: Rustic!
Marge: That house is on fire!
Lionel: Motivated seller!
[The next house is a large, beautiful mansion.]
Marge: That’s a beauty!
Lionel: [closes book] Forget about that house, that’s the murder house.
Marge: Ooh, I remember! Mrs. Astor was very lucky.
Lionel: Well, no one expects you to sell that house. But you’d better sell something, because cubicles are for closers, Marge. Anybody that doesn’t sell a house their first week gets fired. I probably should have mentioned that earlier.
Season 9, Episode 6 – “Realty Bites”
This house is very interesting to me.
There are so many rooms where I at first think “huh, that’s odd” but in a good way.
(like the surprise fireplace 90 degrees from the TV)
but then the execution seems a bit off (like the craftsman style of the fireplace with dark wood in a Great room that with all trim painted white and a “euromodern” kitchen)
I also found the soffit over the master bed as well as the two mirrored closets to each side a bit different, but not bad.
everything was just a bit… different.
My favorites of the house
-the eat in breakfast nook.
-the dining room.
-the fact that a large family could live here.
my least favorites:
that god-awful kitchen.
I’m sure everything in that kitchen is expensive. all together it looks cobbled together, erratic, and cheap.
the colors and textures don’t go together at all. white lacquered cabinets (didn’t we learn anything from the 1970’s?) with grey shiny countertops (are those concrete or some composite material?) with beige shiny pseudo-subway tiles and then wood paneling that doesn’t go with the wood floors. that center island clashes with itself in so many ways that my eyes started to bleed. Unfortunately, it’s smack dab in the center of the Great room, so a Focal point.
The house overall is a winner IMO once everything in the kitchen is ripped out and replaced with something that complements the rest of the house well. It will still be an odd duck, but a winner. something I think people call “a house with character”.
“a house with character” = bizarre
I would agree with ex-sfer, esp. on the kitchen. Way too shiny, cheap looking cabinets. Too open to the main living space, which means to see and hear and smell everything. I’m still a strong proponent of “partially” enclosed kitchens.
Other comments/pet peeves I have:
+bath lighting over vanities is wrong. Light should never come from the top, but from the sides. Why do we see bad bath lighting so often?
+Once again, the interior architecture follows the Dwell style. Nothing original. None of the original character remains, nor does it relate at all the front exterior. As if you walked into another typical condo.
+Lack of curb appeal. No street tree or sidewalk landscaping, and it appears there was space. Look closely at the new sidewalk. Could have been lots of green.
“An incredible steal!” = still on market, overpriced, stubborn seller
“Cute dollhouse” = really small
“2 car driveway” = unwarranted garage conversion
“Will consider all offers!” = well, not really
“Period charm” = handles will fall off appliances shortly after you move in
“Close to incredible nightlife” = very noisy neighborhood, step over passed out partier on your way to work
This is really fun, sort of the opposite of reading a menu without all the adjectives.
my least fave quote:
“instant equity!”
“instant equity!” = prices collapsing so fast that recent appraisals are already out of date
In contract already
255 Moultrie has fallen out of contract and its list price has been increased to $1,335,000 (see Transparency At Firehouse 44 with respect to signaling).
Sold for $1,320,000 on 12/17/2010
so a.t., is that closer to 20% off or 35% off peak pricing?
Probably 20% or a little more off peak. That’s only $556/sf.
Let me guess, you’re going to tell us there’s NO WAY a top notch remodel near the top of Bernal would have fetched $668/sf at the market peak even though cookie-cutter condos at the beacon were fetching $800/sf 😉
@AT: Your argument sounds kind of uninformed and ridiculous when you start comparing a SFH on Bernal to a condo at the Beacon. If you’re going to argue that this house would have fetched $800/sf at peak, do the research and find a few comps on Bernal that did (which I think should be easy enough).
R, of course it was tongue-in-cheek. Hence the little 😉
But you’re right that 60 seconds on redfin shows many, many Bernal properties that are not as nice as this place selling during the peak for $700+/sf and even $800+/sf. But as this is not a peak -> current “apple” we can all argue about what it would have gone for in 2006-07 ’til we’re blue.
But you’re right that 60 seconds on redfin shows many, many Bernal properties that are not as nice as this place selling during the peak for $700+/sf and even $800+/sf.
It very much does not function like that, and the sales you describe were of course much smaller properties. There are diminishing returns as you go higher in square footage in Bernal. Not only that, but only four sales have ever generated 1.5M or more, and they were all contemporary huge view homes oriented northward.
wow fluj! I think you have outdone yourself. here’s a 3/2 1372 sq ft house, half a block over, sold 7/16/2008 for $1.31M.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/98-Anderson-St-94110/home/2019570
Now 2 years later 4/3.5 2400sq ft house, a half block over sells for the same price!
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/255-Moultrie-St-94110/home/762142
Tell us how it’s all micro and how things really work one more time.
My point wasn’t that the market hasn’t gone down, but that one can’t simply take a flat $psqft and slap it onto a larger home in Bernal. It was a simple point, easily made. And that’s because you can count on one hand the number of 1.5M and higher sales in Bernal, and they’re all sort of similar. That holds true for your Anderson example too, even though I bet they didn’t count the lower 1 br in that square footage. The photos make it seem larger than 1372. Take it easy. This is Socketsite not “funwithexclamationpoints.com.”
well, ninny asked the question, and it’s quite clear that prices are down 20 to 35% or more from peak. Right, ninny?
so you want to go on record saying this place sells for at least $1,580,000 at peak and possibly even as high as $1,780,000? and i’m not looking for beacon comps here. show me bernal at that price back then (or ford st. at $4M+ for that matter)
Sure, what the hell. I’ll “go on record” making up some hypothetical price for a sale that never happened. Between $1.6mm and $1.8mm at the peak. I suppose you’re going on record saying NO WAY would this place have gone for $668/sf. Like I said above, we can argue ’til we’re blue.
We’ll never know, will we?
“We’ll never know, will we?”
actually, even during the frothy bubblicious times we did not see those prices in bernal-or did we?
any comps you could point out?
you guys often make blanket statements about prices for the whole city (tipster’s 40-50% off, your own 20-35% off) but your theories do not stand up to reality.
Median $/square foot for 94110 single-family homes:
2010 $585
2009 $607
2008 $667
2007 $699
2006 $653
2005 $677
2004 $560
2003 $446
255 Moultrie is much larger than the median but also much nicer.
no comps then?
anonee, no comps from you? Let’s see what you’ve got.
You’re soliciting comps so you can shoot them down — busier street, not as big, walls the wrong color, etc. An easy game since no two places are exactly alike. Sorry, not going to waste my time with that. You really think this place would have gone for way under the median $/sf? You go ahead and think that, but if you want to argue such a nonsensical position here you need to present some pretty compelling evidence.
AT: I think anonee’s point is there is no comps to shoot down.. Show us a few Bernal SFH that went for over $1.6mm as you say this house would have.
I can’t find them.
Here, let me help. Here’s the 4/3+, 2250-2500 sq ft places that sold in Bernal mid to late 2007 (as close as peak as we can get methinks).
373 Franconia: 4/3.5, 2426 sq ft, sold 7/18/07 for $1,100,000 (453 $/sf)
1547 Alabama 4/4, 2542 sq ft, sold 07/24/07 for $1,265,000 (497 $/sf)
688 Powhattan 4/3, 2250 sq ft, sold 10/19/07 for $1,325,000 (588 $/sf)
And you’re confident this would have gone for $1,600,000-1,800,000 (675-759 $/sf)? Sure about that?