Purchased for $729,000 in August 2000, 1940 Buchanan resold at $800,000 in June 2004, returned to the market this past January asking $879,000, and was withdrawn from the market in May having been reduced to $799,000 (“Restaged: come for a 2nd look”).
Now relisted, the list price for the Lower Pacific Heights condo has also been reduced to $759,000 (5 percent below its 2004 sale and within 4 percent of its year 2000 price).
∙ Listing: 1940 Buchanan (2/1) 1,480 sqft – $759,000 [1940buchanan.com] [MLS]
It Must Have Been The Staging: 1940 Buchanan Edition [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Tweety

    I’m so happy the agent included Picture 16. I was worried there would not be space for my three shabby-chic mirror frames! 🙂

  2. Posted by Gigi

    First of all, I can’t believe ANYONE would’ve paid $800k for this place–even in 2004. What an awkward layout and there’s so little light. It doesn’t look like 1,480 square feet either. I don’t know if that’s because the office takes up so much square footage or what, but the living room and master bedroom look small. I still think they’re overshooting at $759k especially given the location.

  3. Posted by sfrenegade

    1940-1942 Buchanan St. is a 3-unit building. It’s confusing because I also see a 1200 sqft 1/1 that also comes up as 1940 Buchanan St. and sometimes as 1940 Buchanan St. Unit A. That unit sold for $330K in 2004 and $299K in 2000 and has been on and off the market for almost a year.
    1942 Buchanan St. is also a 2/1 with 1480 sqft. It has an interesting sales history:
    $763K in 2000
    $760K in 2002
    $815K in 2002 4 months later
    $905K in 2004
    The units were $88.5K, $255K, and $315K in 1996 when first sold off. Hard to believe you could buy a 1200 sqft Western AdditionLower Pacific Heights condo for under $100K then.

  4. Posted by Brian

    I remember seeing this earlier this year and went and took a look in person. Its not a true 2 bedroom unit, very small, very dark and even with the new staging and lower price, the homeowners and leased parking added another $600 per month to this, its still a pig with lipstick.

  5. Posted by spencer

    i looked at this place in q1 of this year too. it is really tiny. I’m not sure how they calculate the sq ft, but my 1150 sq ft apt is much bigger. i would venture to say this one is about 900-950 instead if 1480. also very dark with little natural light.

  6. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    I say 600k

  7. Posted by Rillion

    “i would venture to say this one is about 900-950 instead if 1480.”
    Take it from someone living in an 816 sq ft 2/1, this place is much bigger then 900-950 sq ft.

  8. Posted by SocketSite

    The sale of 1940 Buchanan closed escrow today with a reported contract price of $759,000, 5 percent below its 2004 sale and within 4 percent of its year 2000 price.

  9. Posted by Brian

    One born every minute. They should have rented a year while this drops another $100K

  10. Posted by anonee

    yep, and they should eat at mickey D’s with satchel while they shlep their family from rental to rental…

  11. Posted by A.T.

    McDonald’s? With the money they would have saved by renting an identical place, they could eat at Coi once a week and decent places all over town a couple more. And then come home to the exact same place! And still come out way ahead with the avoidance of the lost equity that these 2010 buyers will face.
    But they would have to “schlep . . .”

Add a Comment

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