October 29, 2010
Not Fit (For Some) To Print
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 Since then the listing has been reduced, delisted, relisted, withdrawn, listed, delisted, relisted, withdrawn, listed, reduced, delisted, relisted, and last withdrawn a month ago.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]
First Published: October 29, 2010 9:45 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
They want to sell that badly yet couldn't be bothered to prepare some interior photos? I will never understand that.
Posted by: Valentino at October 29, 2010 9:59 AM
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.
Posted by: sfrenegade at October 29, 2010 10:08 AM
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.
Posted by: ex SF-er at October 29, 2010 10:20 AM
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.
$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.
Posted by: A.T. at October 29, 2010 10:31 AM
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.
Posted by: tipster at October 29, 2010 10:39 AM
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.
Posted by: R at October 29, 2010 10:54 AM
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:
Posted by: A.T. at October 29, 2010 11:24 AM
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.
Posted by: lolcat_94123 at October 29, 2010 11:28 AM
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...
Posted by: Denis at October 29, 2010 11:38 AM
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.
Posted by: sfrenegade at October 29, 2010 11:44 AM
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.
Posted by: R at October 29, 2010 11:55 AM
I looked at one of these townhouses ages ago...
Which causes me to ask, is this really a "SFR" as indicated?
Posted by: EH at October 29, 2010 1:08 PM
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.
Posted by: formerly%whatever at October 29, 2010 1:22 PM
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:
Posted by: Denis at October 29, 2010 1:36 PM
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. :)
Posted by: SanJoseRenter at October 31, 2010 11:18 PM
"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?
Posted by: sfrenegade at November 1, 2010 9:28 AM
Why do people hire crappy realtors like this?
Posted by: R at November 1, 2010 9:37 AM
"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.
so is this like, 40 or 50% off peak?
Posted by: anonee at November 1, 2010 9:46 AM
Sold: $2.665, 664/psf. Despite the seller loss, this is actually a pretty awesome outcome for this property/location in this market.
Posted by: eddy at March 3, 2011 11:41 AM