In June of 2005 a newly remodeled 290 Frederick hit the market as a single-family home listed for $1,995,000. Two months later it closed escrow with a recorded contract price of $2,100,000.
A little under two years later in March of 2007, 290 Frederick returned to the market listed for $2,149,000. The sale closed escrow that May with a recorded contract price of $2,170,000, an apples-to-apples increase in value of 3 percent from 2005 to 2007.
This past February 290 Frederick returned to the market once again, this time asking $2,099,000, a sale at which would have represented a nominal 3 percent decrease in value from 2007 to 2010. In March its list price was reduced to $1,999,000. In April the listing was withdrawn from the MLS.
A week after being withdrawn 290 Frederick was relisted anew with zero days on the market and an “original” list price of $1,795,000. In June its list price was reduced to $1,749,000. And for the past two months they’ve been asking $1,699,000, a sale at which would represent a not so nominal 22 percent ($471,000) decrease in value from 2007 to 2010 for the for the “Sumptuous Victorian masterpiece in prime Cole Valley.”
∙ Listing: 290 Frederick (3/3) – $1,699,000 [MLS]
somehow exposed bricks don’t increase my comfort zone in San Francisco. Looks like brick foundation next to garage door. All around? OTOH lots of dough poured into the living area. Heavyness of the woodwork in the entry area looks unoriginal, as in vintage of the house.
Why spend all this money and not put a new foundation in?
i just noticed, slate stairs too!
almost $2.2M for a house with no yard?
I think we need to coin a new acronym: WWTT
possibly the worst kitchen layout i’ve seen in a while
So this is that fabled market decline I’ve heard so much about? Ugly properties in undesirable areas have fallen only 22%, and this is supposed to be a big deal? They’ll barely lose half a mil, which is almost nothing in real SF. Pshaw.
So it sold in Aug ’05, again in May ’07 and listed again in Feb ’10. It’s a realtor’s dream.
I agree with bernalkid – the woodwork looks wrong and the slate steps look wrong. The brick foundation is a huge red flag for me and there doesn’t seem to be much support in the garage.
Maybe this time it’ll be bought by someone who loves it and doesn’t see it as a flipping cash machine and they can do a quality job of fixing it.
This should sell immediately since they have managed to paint over almost all of the ugly dark wood (missed a few things, but that can be corrected.) Also the painted the living room a good deep gray, so very fashionable. They missed the opportunity of increasing its appeal by staining the floors black.
“Ugly properties in undesirable areas have fallen only 22%, and this is supposed to be a big deal? They’ll barely lose half a mil, which is almost nothing in real SF. Pshaw.”
compare to 2005 when ugly properties in bad areas appreciated 22% and increased in value half a million.
I took a tour during the remodel. The quality of the work is top notch. However, I’m not a fan of the reverse plan – bedrooms at street level with kitchen, dining and living room upstairs.
That’s what happens when you turn a two flat building into a single family home.
saw this in feb. floorplan is the main reason it’s not selling.
very very strange floor plan.
“Posted by: douche at October 25, 2010 2:55 PM”
Are you a new commenter? Best name by a new commenter in a while. Welcome.
do you duck under that cabinet thingy in picture 3 if there is an earthquake?
I’ve been watching this since it was first listed, I own a house on the street so I’ve been especially interested to see what it would sell for. Last time I had a chance to see it was back in 05, before its first run at 2M.
From memory the layout is poor because they did very little to change it from two units to one. When it was purchased in 2001 it was listed as 290-292 Clayton st. with 2400 SF. Since then no major re-building, just minor adaptation of existing floor plans. This explains the funky kitchen layout and odd living space vs. bedroom floorplan. I did a quick check of permits pulled and besides street use (moving), only minor work seems to have been done on the house. lots of questions about what was done with permitted work or not, thought was put into surface finishes and looks, but I wonder how much was put into the structure itself, and even if it is a SFR or still 2 units.
Clayton st. is interesting from a SF housing POV, since this is often advertised as either Cole valley or Ashbury heights and both areas were poster children of the boom. Currently there are four houses on this block for sale-
720 Clayton st. 3/1.5 no parking. Condo $795K
39 days on RF, $564 -PSF
764 Clayton st. 4/3.5, 2 car. TIC $1,159K
31 days on RF, $550 -PSF
766 Clayton st. 3/3.5 2 car. TIC $1,079K
31 days on RF, $550 -PSF
290 Frederick st. 3/3 2 car. SFR $1,699K
193 days on RF, $708 -PSF if original 2001 listing has the correct square footage for the house.
I’m interested to see what these finally sell for…
What is that last pic……an airplane hanger?
I’ve been noticing more HDR photos showing up in listings.
talk about paying too much. tho the house is nice inside the funky layout and lack of yard are not acceptable in this market at this price. yes the market has changed but that’s not to say that stuff is not moving. two on belvedere are now in escrow and the one up the street on clayton is as well.
Me too EH though I’m not seeing obvious HDR in this listing.
I’ll betcha some camera manufacture will produce the killer real estate camera :
– 20mm fisheye lens with perspective correction to make those tiny rooms look huge
– in-camera HDR
– automatic power line detection and removal
– +3 saturation standard
– choice of ten skies to splice in place of that monotonous fog
Now that consumer cameras have more computer power than a university physics lab it will be easy to produce such a widget. There are already cameras out there that detect faces and apply “beauty mode” to erase wrinkles and pimples so doing the same to homes should be a cinch.
Milkshake, I like it! Can it also put zoomed-in views of the GGB in every window? I once went to an open house that advertised: “Views of the Palace of Fine Arts!” when literally, you had to lean out the window two feet and look down the street a couple of blocks . . .
2005: $2.1M; 2007: $2.17; 2010: 1.55. Over $700,000 loss with commissions. Did this really cost nearly 50% more three years ago?
Since it went pending, and the buyer locked the interest rate no doubt, the cost of money is up nearly 20%.
Good times.