2605 California (Image Source: MapJack.com)
Purchased for $2,940,000 in July 2005, the remodeled Victorian at 2605 California returned to the market asking $3,495,000 in July 2008. Since then the listing has been reduced, delisted, relisted, withdrawn, listed, delisted, relisted, withdrawn, listed, reduced, delisted, relisted, and last withdrawn a month ago.
Yesterday, the single-family home “situated in the HOT Upper Fillmore corridor” was listed anew once again, this time “priced to sell!!” at $2,795,000. Yes, double exclamation points. And yes, with an official “one day” on the market according to industry reports.
As a plugged-in tipster notes, it would appear it’s the publisher of the Chronicle that’s been trying to sell, a tidbit that likely won’t make it in to print.
∙ Listing: 2605 California (4/5.5) 4,013 sqft – $2,795,000 [MLS]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Valentino

    They want to sell that badly yet couldn’t be bothered to prepare some interior photos? I will never understand that.

  2. Posted by sfrenegade

    I wonder how much they spent on this remodel. Price of remodel plus a $140K price cut from the prior sale would be change I can believe in. What a crappy listing. Too much to list, apparently, but apparently too little to take photos of.

  3. Posted by ex SF-er

    wow. I’m certainly going to think about dropping $2.8 MILLION on a sketch. then again, since it’s only been on the market for a day they proably haven’t had time to get the professional photographer in yet.

  4. Posted by A.T.

    This is called “chasing the market down.” Not as many buyers at this price point as in 2008.
    Here is a recent “apple” sale from St. Francis Wood in this rough price range. Tried hard to at least get the 2003 price but couldn’t get anyone to bite. Went for 12% under July 2003. So much for the safety of a longer-term hold on a pre-bubble buy.
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/402-Saint-Francis-Blvd-94127/home/1726111
    $600/sf got you the Bayview in 2007 (http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/1470-Thomas-Ave-94124/home/738532). Now it gets you St. Francis Wood.

  5. Posted by tipster

    Grandma style decor. Gargantuan bathrooms. No Yard, just a cemented in postage stamp sized area slightly larger than the hot tub. Somewhat odd kitchen. B- location.
    2.5

  6. Posted by R

    AT, I’m not sure if you’re Bayview listing is quite right. Looks like it’s more like 1800 square feet (if not more, it claims 6 bedrooms), more like $470 a sq ft.

  7. Posted by A.T.

    R, it was really a rhetorical point — you can now buy a great place in a great neighborhood for what you used to pay for a crappy neighborhood. Here is another Bayview example if you’d like, from 2006:
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/1178-Gilman-Ave-94124/home/1784363

  8. Posted by lolcat_94123

    Only one “And yes,” to start a sentence this time. SS you’re progressing nicely – keep it up! ;) As for this place, $2.8m to live in lower pac heights seems high.

  9. Posted by Denis

    I looked at one of these townhouses ages ago… I was not really a fan. I still don’t like the location or than they’re marketed as SFRs… 2.8 is just too high when it can buy you a 4000 sqft fixer in ultra prime Presidio Heights for the same price. Like the homes on Gough and Franklin, these not-exactly-Pac-Heights properties that sold in the 3s a few years ago are going to get killed…

  10. Posted by sfrenegade

    The reason 1470 Thomas is super-awesome is because it sold at an already bubble priced $625K in 2007, and then the flipper flipped it (claiming $150K in work) for $850K a few months later. The permit was for $38K and mentions adding 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, and then remodeling the kitchen, since it’s a 3-unit place. The flipper was smart to get in and out that quickly.
    It’s incredible that 1178 Gilman and 1470 Thomas sold for super-conforming prices in the Bayview. I bet they thought they were getting a good deal too.

  11. Posted by R

    AT, not necessarily arguing your point, but you should at least find an accurate example of your point.
    Saying $600 was Bayview a few years ago and St. Francis now, then using examples that show $470 in Bayview and $610 St. Francis is a little off.

  12. Posted by EH

    I looked at one of these townhouses ages ago…
    Which causes me to ask, is this really a “SFR” as indicated?

  13. Posted by formerly%whatever

    Yes, they are SFR’s, but the lots are less than 25′ wide. They were all part of a conversion project by Mitch Menaged/Gary Raugh back in the late 90’s.

  14. Posted by Denis

    In what ways are these true SFRs? These fit almost exactly my definition of “townhouse,” which may be rather broad… It’s hard to argue that identical, mirror-imaged homes on smaller than standard lots can be defined as single family houses…
    Sorry to use wikipedia as a reference:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraced_housing

  15. Posted by SanJoseRenter

    1) There are now 14 pics (1 sketch and 13 cluttered photos.)
    2) Hard to say if it’s a townhouse or SFR from the MLS. “Attached, 4+ Story” but zoning “RM-1″.
    Guess somebody needs to go down there with a sledgehammer and pound on the common wall. :)

  16. Posted by sfrenegade

    “There are now 14 pics (1 sketch and 13 cluttered photos.)”
    Those pictures are strange. It’s like the realtor put the camera on a dog and had the dog run around with the camera set to automatically take a picture every 10 seconds. Ever heard of framing the shot?

  17. Posted by R

    Why do people hire crappy realtors like this?

  18. Posted by anonee

    ok tippy
    “Grandma style decor. Gargantuan bathrooms. No Yard, just a cemented in postage stamp sized area slightly larger than the hot tub. Somewhat odd kitchen. B- location.
    2.5″
    so is this like, 40 or 50% off peak?

  19. Posted by eddy

    Sold: $2.665, 664/psf. Despite the seller loss, this is actually a pretty awesome outcome for this property/location in this market.

Add a Comment

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