1376 Florida
In April 2007 the Inner Mission fixer at 1376 Florida sold for $700,000. Since then “fully approved plans” have been secured and “permits are ready to be issued” for rebuilding the property as two “low energy condominiums” totaling 3,000 square feet.
1376 Florida Plan
Returned to the market professionally priced at $850,000 early last year, reduced to $799,000, then to $749,000, and then to $649,000 before being withdrawn last October, the property has just returned to the market as a short-sale listed for “$300,000.”
∙ Listing: 1376 Florida (3/2) – “$300,000” [MLS] [1376florida-sf.com]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by reguru

    Just a question about that pretty diagram — what happens on the days when the yellow sun is replaced with cold, grey fog? Can someone explain what this diagram is actually showing, and what this is really about? Thank you!!!!

  2. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Its the Mission reguru – the cold grey fog doesn’t occur so frequently there.
    I don’t know whether that drawing is to scale but the risers on that top flight of stairs seem awfully high.
    $300K is a lot more realistic for a fixer like this. I think it will go over asking.
    I hope we’re entering the end of the $650-$1M fixer. That was just plain crazy.

  3. Posted by A.T.

    Didn’t someone posit recently that fixer-fixer apples are the best market indicator? May get an answer soon for the inner mish (I’ll discount to 0 the “approved plans” although I guess they are worth something).

  4. Posted by sfrenegade

    So they tried to get $150K profit without even doing any real work. Brilliant. They even got the tax value reduced to $610K for ’09.
    I think this will go for over asking too, but at least the price is closer to the correct range now. Location-wise, this isn’t that far from the projects.
    It sounds like some of the legwork has been done here, but will the new buyer really want to continue this experimental zero energy project? I would imagine that it’s a lot more pricey than conventional building, even if the idea is trendy. Hilarious that they attached PDF copies of Wikipedia to explain what they wanted to do.

  5. Posted by Q

    Slightly off-topic question. This MLS listing doesn’t have a listed lot size. Indeed, I rarely see listed lot sizes in SF. Given that, in many parts of SF, lot sizes are standardized, why don’t agents list the sizes? Some people (like me) must care and it’s easier than figuring out the size of the building.

  6. Posted by meep

    lot sizes? many listings in sf don’t bother with the square foot of the home let alone the lot.

  7. Posted by sfrenegade

    Tax records say that the lot size is 2495 sqft. They also say the house is 1176 sqft as a 1/2.

  8. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    “Indeed, I rarely see listed lot sizes in SF.”
    Lately I’ve taken to looking up the property on Google maps where if you zoom in close enough you’ll see the lot boundaries. That allows a quick calculation of the lot size plus you get more info about how the lot is shaped and how the lot interfaces to the neighbors. And in some neighborhoods you’ll see the floorplate of the structure and sometimes even a little 3D model of the building.
    It is baffling as to why sfarmls.com went with Bing maps instead which has none of this important real estate info. It is almost as if they don’t care whether the consumer has easy access to objective information.

  9. Posted by sfrenegade

    “It is baffling as to why sfarmls.com went with Bing maps instead which has none of this important real estate info. It is almost as if they don’t care whether the consumer has easy access to objective information.”
    When you frame it like that, it doesn’t sound baffling at all, Milkshake. To be fair, however, it could be because Bing is aggressively marketing and trying to steal share from Google.

  10. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Yes, financial incentives might be at the root though this would be cash from Bing to SFAR, right ? Anyone can embed google maps for free.

  11. Posted by sfrenegade

    Depends on what other MSFT services SFAR signed up for. It’s not bundling, but you can offer incentives (e.g. a higher revenue share or a lower service fee) for using multiple services.

  12. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    … actually SFAR might be concerned with providing accurate information. I doubt that Google claims that their info is accurate (though it sure seems dead-on) and SFAR might be worried about potential lawsuits if for example the gmap displayed the wrong parcel. So I can understand why they might want to go for a less detailed map view. Sorry about the above cerebral flatulence.
    Anyways, back to the $850k energy conserving pipe dream fixer. I kind of would like to see some interior photos. Yeah, it is probably sorry looking but still would help evaluate its condition from afar.

  13. Posted by Q

    @sfrenegade: “Tax records say that the lot size is 2495 sqft. They also say the house is 1176 sqft as a 1/2.”
    Is there a publicly available way to check tax records?

  14. Posted by mikey woodz


  15. Posted by sfrenegade

    Typically Redfin lists it as stated from the tax records, but the SF departments can have a wealth of information too, so sometimes it’s helpful to go directly to the source.

  16. Posted by 47yo hipster

    I saw it, back in the “golden days” of RE investing. Trust me, it was a total POS with a small, useless layout. Cause it was small, I knew that trying to max it size-wise and as two units would be a royal pain in the ass. Guess it took these suckers 3-4 years of mortgage payments to go broke trying.
    I haven’t bothered to look at the “approved plans” in details, but trying to do “unique, green sh!t” in this economic climate is suicidal. Plus, is engineering, mechanical, fire, etc. ALL APPROVED? I suspect there may easily be 6+ additional months of dealing with SF city bureaucracy before you can actually pull a permit to build something that makes sense.
    ‘Im guessing a sale of $400k low to $500k best at top. Remember, you’ll need over a cool $1 mil cash to buy this and finance all the construction. If you plan to keep one condo for yourself and rent the 2nd for now, this could be a nice mid-long term play. Especially if you believe in the mid-long term viability of SF RE…but I know most SS readers don’t, so…

  17. Posted by R

    It still kind of shocks me that someone would have paid $700k for this.

  18. Posted by sfrenegade

    Congrats on the recent b-day, 47yo hipster!
    It still seems hard for this to pencil out at $1.4M cash in ($1M + $400K per hipster’s estimates).

  19. Posted by 47yo hipster

    ^ hard to say what the construction cost would be w/o looking at the plans and account for the green tech. I’d hope it’s not $1mil just to build! If you spend $700-800k to build/hold and pay $400k for the project, it could work out, especially for owner occupier. Maybe.

  20. Posted by sparky-b

    The actual permit isn’t going to demand all the green touches. You can skip them.

  21. Posted by anonee

    value engineer ’em right on outta there..

  22. Posted by Schaetzer

    Not to mention the prime 26th Street location right in there with the projects.

Add a Comment

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