August 24, 2010
3953 Sacramento Returns As A Single-Family Home Plus "Au Pair"
Purchased out of probate as a vacant two-unit building in need of TLC and sold "as-is" with "no further responsibility/liability implied or expressed whatsoever" this past January, 3953 Sacramento has returned to the market asking $3,525,000 as a "renovated to the studs" single-family home with "au pair" unit below.
Permits would suggest that the two-bedroom on the third floor was relocated to the first while the one-bedroom on the second floor was combined with the third, although the new listing notes three bedrooms on the third floor and only one on the first.
∙ Listing: 3953 Sacramento (4/4.5) - $3,525,000 [MLS]
First Published: August 24, 2010 2:00 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Is it a legal conversion from 2 units to 1? I could be wrong, but my understanding is that it's pretty tough to convert multi-units into a single family...
Posted by: lyqwyd at August 24, 2010 2:42 PM
The didn't convert, this place has an "au pair" unit. It's still 2 units
Posted by: sparky-b at August 24, 2010 2:46 PM
nice digs, but wow these guys are trying to pocket quite a bit on the there renovation..and looks like they skimped on the exterior...no views no 1000/sq ft
Posted by: mikey woodz at August 24, 2010 2:50 PM
On the Sacramento Street busline and across the street from a school. No way. Other properties are sitting on that same block...
Posted by: mrs bueller at August 24, 2010 3:06 PM
What's most impressive about this place is the claimed "renovated to studs" in only 7 months in this city.
The old square footage was 2520. Any idea what the new square footage is?
Posted by: sfrenegade at August 24, 2010 3:10 PM
Question for the agents here. What is the purpose of posting the blue print pictures when they are completely unreadable? Does professional MLS access give you better resolution on the pictures?
Posted by: Q at August 24, 2010 3:16 PM
It's a little funny that this home's "transformation" includes pretty much all the cliches slammed in the 2698 Pacific thread...
I'm not a fan... It's bland, totally anonymous.... And the kitchen space doesn't seem well thought out. I also don't like the facade. I'm just not enthusiastic about homes where the renovation only took 7 months... It seems too fast a turnaround to justify the price tag.
Posted by: Denis at August 24, 2010 3:17 PM
Oh no! Not the dreaded glass table staging! Dead giveaway that the rooms are too small.
Posted by: tipster at August 24, 2010 3:21 PM
Huh, they trying to get Harry Potter as the au pair to live under the stairs?
Posted by: Rillion at August 24, 2010 3:26 PM
"And the kitchen space doesn't seem well thought out."
This is the first thing that struck me about this place, both from the photos and the bird's eye view of the blueprints (I would second Q's question). The use of the wide angle lens only serves to accentuate the odd proportions.
There are certainly other things that aren't well thought out either. And the wide angle lens makes at least one of the bathrooms look strange too, well, stranger than they already do. I'm not a fan of the hanging cabinets.
Posted by: sfrenegade at August 24, 2010 3:35 PM
This place has terrible flow.
the LR is awkward at best, a weird walk through space where arranging furniture would be somewhat of a headache. that's one reason why that gold chair is sitting all by its lonesome in dead-space land.
the kitchen has a good work triangle, so I applaud that. but then it has a huge open wasted space area again.
the DR is pushed over on the far wall from the kitchen, again in an awkward space.
Loveseat and 2 chairs for sitting(?) in front of the patio doors going out... because I'm sure someone would actually sit there.
it seems like they just threw walls up and then said "hmm... what should we do with this oblong space? I know, let's put a hutch and flat panel TV there!".
"and this dead space?"
"a loveseat and 2 small chairs to block the patio door!"
at least the bathrooms are nice enough.
Posted by: ex SF-er at August 24, 2010 3:46 PM
Yeah, this is floor plan and staging FAIL. The plans list the dining room in that awkward recessed space in the living room where the sideboard is located, while the staged dining space is designated as the family room. The awkward entrance to the patio from the kitchen looks like a breakfast table is supposed to go there, but it would likely impede access to the garden given how tiny that space looks in the photo without the fish-eye lens.
Posted by: Denis at August 24, 2010 3:56 PM
That's a lotta money for a house this size. Also, the agent could have hired a real photographer. All those wide angle shots make it look like a funhouse with the walls bending off on wild angles.
Posted by: steve at August 24, 2010 4:00 PM
Geez, how many range hoods does one home need? In photo 13, there is the itsiest, bitsiest. teeny tiny range hood, about 3 feet wide.
Then in photo 12, there is a HUGE, Humongous Enormous 10 foot long range hood.
And as for clear furniture staging, even the required piston chairs are clear, a socketsite first. Bad sign = small rooms.
Posted by: tipster at August 24, 2010 4:04 PM
"Loveseat and 2 chairs for sitting(?) in front of the patio doors going out... because I'm sure someone would actually sit there."
They did the same thing in one of the bedrooms with those two chairs inexplicably sitting in a similar wasted space.
"while the staged dining space is designated as the family room"
That explains why it says open kitchen/family room. What a dumb design. At least the way it's staged makes more sense than the plans. Why would you walk through a "family room" to get from the kitchen to the dining room.
Posted by: sfrenegade at August 24, 2010 4:12 PM
It does look pretty bland.
One thing that is interesting is the use of the stairway as a light well (at least, I think that's what's going on here). I've seen that in some architecture articles recently and it does seem like an innovative idea ... one place used a glass staircase to increase the effect. Are there any downsides to doing this?
Posted by: John at August 24, 2010 5:01 PM
Let's even ignore the remodel, it is across the street from a big school. Check out Google Maps and you'll see a picture of the bus right out front. Between the school, the hospital and difficult street parking due to the Presidio and temple right there, it seems over priced. Am I wrong?
Posted by: abc at August 24, 2010 5:23 PM
Well, I can't say that I hate the remodel any more than any other needlessly Dwell-ized Victorian in town. So there's that.
Again, though. What year do these people think this is? Does anyone here think that reno's a two million dollar improvement? Or that even with a really nice redo that this house would be worth three and a half mil in this market? Is this some sorry attempt at Flipper's Last Hurrah?
I guess six months from now these folks and the Glassworks sellers can get together over a beer and wonder why their properties haven't sold.
Posted by: justme at August 24, 2010 7:15 PM
they only need one buyer - a rich jewish CPMP doctor with kids at Lillienthal that wants to walk to work, temple & school. ...one that is wiling to pay a stupid $/sq ft for a 2 unit building with one garage space and about 25% of its living area on the ground level. good luck.
put me down for $2.5M or craigslist rental
Posted by: resp at August 25, 2010 5:38 AM
Meh, I don't hate this place as much as most people on here seem to dislike it. 850/psf is my guess. I find putting the floorplans without including sq ft is bordering on negligent. There was a home on Lake / 2nd that sold in the last 45 days that would be the right comp for this house. Can't find it though, but it did sell fast. I remember it being a pretty good deal. I'll look it up later and reserve the right to revise my psf estimate. If anyone ever gets the square footage please post it.
Posted by: eddy at August 25, 2010 9:09 AM
I toured this yesterday and the listing agent said a draftsman calculated the size at 3400 sft.
It looks better in person and I overheard two of my colleagues opine "This will go fast."
I liked it too, but I also noticed some the quirks noted above. If I was giving a listing presentation, I would have suggested a value range from $2,995,000 to $3,250,000 and would have probably lost the opportunity accordingly.
Buyers like sparkley-new property and it is in Presidio Heights so maybe the market will take it to the listing price. I wish the sellers luck.
Posted by: PUAgent at August 25, 2010 11:51 AM
If that 3400 sqft is accurate, then this is still not a $1037/sqft house. At the $850/sqft that eddy mentioned, you get $2.89M.
Posted by: sfrenegade at August 25, 2010 1:09 PM
The lake st place I was talking about is/was www.45lake.com/ that has a lot of similarities. I think it ended up selling for close to 1k/psf but I couldn't find the sqft. Anyway, 45 lake sold fast and over asking. An outcome I don't predict for 3953 Sacramento.
Posted by: eddy at August 27, 2010 1:39 PM
Anyone know what kind of couch that is in the main photo and where I can find one like that?
Posted by: bgelldawg at August 29, 2010 10:45 AM
Sold: $3.2. 941/psf. Beat my estimate of $850/psf handily. Yup, the market is crashing.
Posted by: eddy at March 2, 2011 1:55 PM
2010 Apple Alert: 45 Lake.
Posted by: eddy at July 13, 2012 1:52 PM