3878 Jackson Before and After
Picked up for $3,841,000 this past April (35 percent below expectations in 2008), the exterior and interior of 3878 Jackson have since been toned down with varying results (the monkey cage faux tortoise shell master bath is gone but so is the warmth of the façade).
The Presidio Heights home is now back on the market and asking $4,200,000.
∙ Listing: 3878 Jackson (5/3.5) 4,609 sqft – $4,200,000 [MLS]
Details, Details, Details (And Another Adjustment In Expectations) [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by tipster

    There is clearlyy some major distress with this sale. They didn’t even finish the update before bailing out. Photo 18 in the redfin listing has the leopard print stairway carpet unchanged.
    They want out fast, and bad. I’d open with a $3M bid if I wasn’t pretty certain prices will get there anyways by the end of 2011.

  2. Posted by kthnxybe

    Most of the interior is still hella ugly.

  3. Posted by Charlotte

    Sheesh! If there was ever a home that was facelifted to within an inch of its life this is it. Too much – too overdone – too expensive. Very 80’s in spirit.

  4. Posted by anonee

    “35 percent below expectations in 2008″
    actually, when i marketed my sfr in d7 i expected to get alot of $$$. when the bids came in 60-70% below my expectations i decided to keep it b/c i figured i was keeping it for 65% “below expectations”. such a deal..

  5. Posted by Smiling Millionaire

    They’ll never be able to pull it off without losing money.

  6. Posted by ex SF-er

    there is so much wrong with this where to start?
    1) they think this places is “worth” $400k more than 6 months ago? due to their cosmetic changes or something?
    2) obviously I was not fond of the monkey poo bathroom. however, the new bathroom screams BORING. could it be any more bland?
    3) despite some very minimal changes, the house is still pretty specific in taste. I personally think it would have been better to just leave it as it was OR really redo the place as opposed to what was done (minimal)
    4) the new exterior color is terrible. they better schedule the open house on a sunny day.

  7. Posted by Gil

    I prefer the before outside facade. The gate painted black works much better for me than the newly painted gate.
    The original exterior color was softerand made the exterior physical destails stand out nicely. Not so much the new color.

  8. Posted by ***

    ex-SF-er said:
    4) the new exterior color is terrible. they better schedule the open house on a sunny day.
    ***************
    Looks like instead they just decided to not let people come inside…
    “shown by confirmed appointment only.”

  9. Posted by sfrenegade

    Another interesting fact about this house. Before the April sale, it was owned at least for some time by 30 Dore LLC, a developer which has been featured on SocketSite before for its disastrous project GlasDore:
    http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2009/02/30_dore_goes_the_rental_for_sale_route_and_offers_a_bon.html
    I’m unclear on how 30 Dore LLC ended up with this place. The prior owner before 30 Dore LLC was CEO of a structured finance-related company. 30 Dore went into receivership at some point, I believe, so I’m not sure if there’s some relation between the two via finance.

  10. Posted by SFMichael

    @Gil – I agree; the original outdoor color scheme was much better. With all the work the place need, you have to wonder why they would repaint the facade when it looked fine to begin with.

  11. Posted by curmudgeon

    I just want to record the fact that I agree with Gil about something.

  12. Posted by K10

    So we’re still flipping houses Florida-condo style in SF, eh? Like it’s 2006, except on $3.8 million properties? I can’t for the life of me calculate how the risk/reward on this ever made sense. It’s not like in April 2010 we were in the middle of a rip roaring economy where $5 million houses were selling left and right. So why would you plunk down $3.8 mil, spend a bunch of money to renovate, just to try to get out for $4.2 mil? Clearly, still a bunch of dumb money floating around…

  13. Posted by on behalf of...sfrenegade

    Another interesting fact about this house. Before the April sale, it was owned at least for some time by 30 Dore LLC, a developer which has been featured on SocketSite before for its disastrous project GlasDore:
    http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2009/02/30_dore_goes_the_rental_for_sale_route_and_offers_a_bon.html
    I’m unclear on how 30 Dore LLC ended up with this place. The prior owner before 30 Dore LLC was CEO of a structured finance-related company. 30 Dore went into receivership at some point, I believe, so I’m not sure if there’s some relation between the two via finance.
    Posted by: sfrenegade at September 29, 2010 10:27 AM

  14. Posted by ***

    so they panted the sunny exterior to a dull grey, and they painted the monkey bathroom… other than that, I see no updating of appliances, changing carpets, removal of wall maps (who wants to look at the freeway interchange as they are in the bathroom?) or updating the countertops… how are they thinking this is worth 350K more than a couple of months ago??

  15. Posted by EBGuy

    I’m unclear on how 30 Dore LLC ended up with this place.
    I’m fairly certain that this is a mistake on the part of sfblockshopper. If you look up the APN on the recorders site for 3878 Jackson (0967 009), 30 Dore LLC does not figure in. Furthermore, the address for SF Dore LLC matches the address for Redwood Mortgage, which was pursuing a lawsuit against 30 Dore LLC. It appears that this chapter in the Hauser saga has finally wound down, with ownership transferred (30 Dore LLC to SF Dore LLC) on April 27 (which coincides with the date this place closed — and this explains how the records got scrambled by sfblockshopper).

  16. Posted by ryan

    @****
    I can’t help but laugh when I see statements like yours. Do you buy stock? Things change value in the market without “improvements”.

  17. Posted by ***

    Wow… nice of you to laugh. Maybe someone else can help me understand without the condescending snark.

  18. Posted by anonee

    “how are they thinking this is worth 350K more than a couple of months ago??”
    how do you know it is profit seeking driving the bus here. you guys assume way too much.

  19. Posted by Denis

    I’m giving this whole mess the side-eye.. Not sure what’s going on here.. The sale – if there is one- will clearly be under 4…

  20. Posted by sfrenegade

    EBGuy, could be a scramble. The rest of the chain of title is odd too, so maybe they missed a few things. I’ll try to check my source that tends to be more authoritative at some point and see what happened there.

  21. Posted by eddy

    You people must be blind or something. Can’t you see that they added a putting green over the garage space? The saved dues over the Olympic club are clearly where they are making the business case here.
    The paint job alone here was probably 15k, and could easily have been much higher. Odd situation this one is….?

  22. Posted by eddy

    Never-mind. The putting green was there in the earlier pictures. Found the old mini-site:
    http://www.inkswitch.com/marketspace/viewSite.php?contID=11a4c00

  23. Posted by justanotherblogger

    For those of you commenting on the exterior color, did you ever physically walk by the old property? The yellow may have photographed nicely, but it looked like piss in person and was an ugly contrast to the modern-ish brickwork.
    In any case, I doubt this is a desire to flip it. It’s probably someone realizing that they don’t want to live by the Arguello gate and they are just trying to get their original price back in tact (assuming people will discount bids).
    The new owner does not seem to be hurting for $$$. This is not a distress.

  24. Posted by derrysf

    Did they tear out the street tree as a part of this refurbishment, or is it simply out of frame due to the changed photo angle…?

  25. Posted by EH

    derry: changed angle and more fisheye. you can still see it there in the corner, just follow the line from the gate.

  26. Posted by Ryan

    @****
    I’m sorry for the snark. My point is that the market changes and makes such changes in price possible without any improvements. Like stock, the value of a property is based on market demand. Of course the market can drop too…

  27. Posted by eddy

    Drove by this place today. New color isn’t that bad in person; but there are some odd things that should be changed.

  28. Posted by eddy

    BOM @ $3.999

  29. Posted by eddy

    BOM @ 3.85

  30. Posted by eddy

    Sold Price: $3,660,000
    Down from 2010.

Add a Comment

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