55 Buena Vista Terrace: Dusk
As we wrote about 55 Buena Vista in September of 2008 when listed for $3,395,000:

It’s a 1905 Edwardian that’s been redesigned by architect Jonathan Feldman and interior designer Joseph Oroza (the seller). Big glass doors with some big city views.

As we added in February 2009:

55 Buena Vista Terrace was re-listed last month and recently reduced to $2,695,000 (now 21% under original asking).

Purchased for $2,177,000 in April of 2006, but significantly remodeled since (including adding a new bathroom, turning outdoor space in, and remodeling the kitchen and dining).

And as a plugged-in reader noted yesterday, 55 Buena Vista Terrace is back on the market once again and now asking $2,295,000. That’s $1,100,000 (32%) under 2008 expectations and likely well below 2006 acquisition-plus-remodeling cost.
∙ Listing: 55 Buena Vista Terrace (3/3.5) 3,106 sqft – $2,295,000 [MLS]
Riders On The Storm (The Doors Of 55 Buena Vista Terrace Reduced) [SocketSite]
Big Swinging…Doors (And Here Comes The Competition) [SocketSite]

23 thoughts on “From Easy Profit To Likely Loss For 55 Buena Vista Terrace”
  1. It appears that we have reached the “The remodel will be my gift to posterity just let me be able to say I broke even on the purchase price” price.

  2. “That’s $1,100,000 (32%) under 2008 expectations and likely well below 2006 plus remodeling cost”
    I feel badly for these folks because it’s a lovely home, but you don’t develop property for profit in areas 5 when you spend 2M+ on the buy. This is not Russian Hill. There is no market that has ever supported such a maneuver, let alone September 2008’s and on. This house is 2500 sq feet or so, with challenging outdoor space no matter what, and they spent 350K over asking on the buy?
    [Editor’s Note: The house is listed at 3,106 square feet.]

  3. Is it? OK. My fault. The old tax record said 1800 feet and they seemingly only built down. Regardless, the point stands. “Easy profit,” this was never, ever going to be. Profit was taken out of the equation when they spent $1200 psqft on the area 5 purchase that doesn’t even have downtown let alone northern views.

  4. Yeah, you’re right. I assumed it had the Castro/orientation on the hill. You know what they say about “assume.” However, you’re welcome to discuss easily achieved 2M+ purchased area 5 developments without me.

  5. Cool interior, but why such a bland and boring facade? Certainly, no curb appeal. Is there some permit/zoning issue that would make exterior changes impossible?

  6. Agree with fluj…it seems like this was an ego-driven vanity project. Either the owner thought he was going to live there forever and didn’t care about the price, or he was delusional about the “greater fool” issue if he flipped it. The purchase price/renovation cost certainly wasn’t well though out, even in the context of a bubbly 2006. It just looks particularly disastrous now…..
    I really like the place, and would love to live there. Unfortunately it would need to drop another million! lol

  7. There is no market that has ever supported such a maneuver, let alone September 2008’s.
    Purchased in 2006 for $700 psft. That’s when 1 brs at the Beacon (#1414) were welling for $826 psft.
    Any realtor would have told them they had just made the buy of the century, and with some modernizing, it would easily be worth $1M more.
    Is it that easy to forget the swarm of buyers with increasingly easy money loans packing open houses, a line of mercedes with their hazard lights flashing up and down the street, and realtors, standing in a sea of people walking through the open houses stating “Offers due Sunday – We’re going to throw offers with inspections or other contingencies right in the trash”?

  8. “Is it that easy to forget”
    We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia.
    Oceania is our ally. Oceania has always been our ally.

  9. “Purchased in 2006 for $700 psft. That’s when 1 brs at the Beacon (#1414) were welling for $826 psft. ”
    No. They paid $1200 psqft. The 2006 purchase was for an unimproved 1800 sq foot property: “Lower level with enormous development/ remodel potential.”
    “Any realtor”
    Not one who was conversant with values and/or wanted to keep working with an obviously talented designer.

  10. lol Diemos!
    Tipster, didn’t they buy it in 2006 at 1,200 per square foot? I don’t know…it’s a little hard to jive the 1800 square foot tax record, with the 3000 square feet claimed here, but they apparently added square feet both down and out the back on the first floor.
    If that interpretation is correct, it doesn’t compare to a Beacon condo at all.
    But I think we can all agree that people sure had stars in their eyes in 2006.

  11. “… bored to tears by speculative arguments about money.”
    Perhaps you’re right, but it was framed with the words “Easy Profit,” so the intent is clear.
    [Editor’s Note: And listed for $3,395,000 in 2008, so yes, we’ll agree that the intent and expectations were rather clear.]

  12. “Purchased in 2006 for $700 psft. That’s when 1 brs at the Beacon (#1414) were welling for $826 psft.”
    Another Tipster lie? Gotta love you calling Realtors liars and cheats on a daily basis while you lie on a daily basis.
    And another ridiculous analogy – a 700 SqFt condo’s SqFt price vs. a 3,100 SqFt house’s SqFt price are two completely different things. But who needs facts and common sense when promoting today’s conspiracy theory.

  13. Seems like this is a relative bargain compared to Deming Street and others on Clarendon and Palo Alto – also a better location since it is walking distance from Duboce/Lower Haight and the Castro. Unfortunately, I will have to save up 12,000 for a circular Roche Bobois couch to fit that family room space…..

  14. The purchase price and renovation would only make sense if this was to become your ‘I’m never going to move again’ home. Selling it after a couple of years is a huge mistake. Then again, in a few years we may think he’s brilliant for minimizing an even bigger loss.

  15. Interestingly the original ask in 2002 was $1,795,000 or +21% under the eventual close price. HAD it sold for its original ask you might have a B/E situation. Just more fact of the insane exuberance back then. The original MLS listing still has pictures so you can see the extent of the remodel here very clearly. 300k is probably about right. But it wasn’t 100k.

Leave a Reply

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