February 17, 2011
Amongst The Gold Coast Mansions And Estates For $800 Per Foot
Boasting Golden Gate Bridge views, 3,900 square feet, five bedrooms and parking for two cars "amongst Gold Coast mansions & estates," but in need of a bit of updating ("…in the same family for over 40 years"), 2623 Divisadero has hit the market asking $3,095,000 or just under $800 per square foot.
∙ Listing: 2623 Divisadero (5/4.5) 3,900 sqft - $3,095,000 [MLS]
First Published: February 17, 2011 6:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
This will be interesting. I predict another 2507 situation with this one. It will be gone before the weekend is out.
Posted by: eddy at February 17, 2011 7:24 AM
Seems cheap. Nice views.
Posted by: Paul Hwang at February 17, 2011 7:50 AM
I love the block this house is on! I agree, for this price it seems really cheap given the locale and space. Has anyone seen the inside in person? From the photos, the updating needed doesn't seem that bad.
Posted by: Gigi at February 17, 2011 7:56 AM
This house was on the market for a very long time last year so it great to see they finally reduced the price. I assume that this needs a good amount of structural work as well as updating.
Posted by: Just Looking at February 17, 2011 8:39 AM
Incredible views out of the top floor of this place, an especially interesting angle of the GGB too I remember. But, lots of deferred maintenance, and the foundation looked to be brick.
Posted by: gh at February 17, 2011 9:04 AM
Meh. Too much work at that price. Pass.
Posted by: tipster at February 17, 2011 9:48 AM
I think tipster nailed it.
Saw the house last year, it's in a good shape overall, just needs new baths/kitchen. You can make the interior great for $300k w/o sweating it much.
Brick foundation but it's on bedrock, it would certainly scare a lot of buyers but mostly on the emotional level.
Backyard is small and there is zero privacy.
I think the biggest challenge here is zero expansion potential, short of fixing up the area behind the garage.
So if you want to gut it completely, do the seismic upgrade, new electrical, plumbing, etc.. you are looking into the $1.2M, which would push the $/sf too high and would be a PITA.
Having said that, I did see many homes either selling for $1200/sf or priced under $4m around presidio hts for similar size and condition (i.e. only new bath/kitchens), so maybe the real killer is the location on busy Divis?
Posted by: someone at February 17, 2011 10:03 AM
Neighborhood, view, generally good condition and sq ft price = a bargain.
Posted by: Conifer at February 17, 2011 10:15 AM
Yeah, this was for sale forever last year... I was surprised it didn't sell at the time, but buyers were definitely avoiding fixers. I think it'll sell soon, but maybe under 3. It's one of only three homes under 5 million for sale in Pac Heights north of California st. Another home a block up in is escrow asking 5.3.
Another pointless fact. If I'm not mistaken, this house used to have these hand scrawled right-wing/anti-Obama messages posted in the top floor windows for the viewing pleasure of southbound drivers on Divis.
Posted by: Denis at February 17, 2011 10:47 AM
This house could make a nice Zynga annex. Gotta keep up with the Bebo's...
Posted by: anon at February 17, 2011 11:20 AM
Be surprised if it doesn't move. It's a dated house, fairly tight rooms, etc.. People constantly question the block/Divis address, but properties do move on those blocks and move quickly for much more money -
Example: 2841 Divisadero (sold for $7.5M+)
Example: 2737 Divisadero (in contract, list @ $5.3)
Posted by: Longtime Lurker at February 17, 2011 1:24 PM
I kinda like the kitchen as is. The original stove is great. And the nook is awesome. Top floor is fantastic. It's unusual to see something like this priced to actually find buyers.
Posted by: Kurt Brown at February 17, 2011 2:25 PM
3047 Divisadero just sold for 797/psf.
Posted by: eddy at February 17, 2011 5:02 PM
A whole bunch of lower end Pacific Heights homes are in escrow per Redfin
2552 Baker Ask $2,995,000.
2416 Gough Ask $2,125,000. $607 Sq Ft
1810 Lyon Ask $1,395,000
2781 Clay Ask $2,895,000. $849 Sq Ft
2737 Divisidero Ask $5,395,000.
2240 Broderick Ask $2,500,000. $694 Sq Ft
2409 Octavia Ask $2,599,000. $437 Sq Ft
When was the last time you could buy a single family home in Pacific Heights for $1,395.000?
Posted by: GungHayFatChoy at February 17, 2011 5:47 PM
Oops, left out
2112 Baker Ask $2,250,000.
2207 Scott Ask $3,450,000.
Posted by: GungHayFatChoy at February 17, 2011 5:56 PM
800 per foot isn't really a bargain for this place. Even during the bubble years, you could still buy fixers on Divis for less than this. Hell, you could by a view fixer on a prime e/w block for under 800 per foot. I'll provide examples if necessary.
The real interest is the lack of supply. Malin's got 60 Normandie coming back at 9.5 (I remember it selling for close to 12 a few years ago. Property Shark makes it look like an 11.5 sale in 06) and Nina's got 2828 Green which shows up on the market every few years... but otherwise, not a lot of great SFRs out there. 3 houses under 10 million is really unusual. I'm really curious what this spring is going to look like.
Posted by: Denis at February 17, 2011 6:05 PM
Agree its not a bargain at 793/psf but it is a rare situation. And I think you could do a lot with this home easily. I'd take the siesmic risk. Floorplan looks good and easy options to make the top level top notch.
Posted by: eddy at February 17, 2011 6:30 PM
Doesn't matter if the brick foundation is on bedrock..or not.
It's gonna shake and move like the rest of The City, and come tumbling down.
Put in new foundations first, then you can dress it up like the opera.
Posted by: noearch at February 17, 2011 7:14 PM
Re-priced, relisted and painted with most of the furniture moved out- it was charmingly grim when it first came on the market. The top floor is cheaply built out- that peaked-ceiling top floor room looks like it might have once been a sleeping porch. Much of the plumbing runs down the side of the house next to the entrance. The garage is a pit. All the baths and the kitchen need work, if not replacement. Even having been reduced 400K, there's not enough upside, yet.
It does have some beautiful interior details, and lovely windows. The view from the kitchen and deck looks west down some lovely gardens, and the top-floor views of the bay are incredible. It's a wonderful house.
Posted by: Rocco at February 17, 2011 8:07 PM
Do you mind explaining to me how this 19th structure still stands?
PropShark puts "year built at 1900" AKA pre-quake.
I know that you think there is only one right way of doing things, just was wondering whether facts ever causes you to rethink?
Posted by: someone at February 17, 2011 8:46 PM
If you join PropShark info with Google and you can easily find that the owners of donated over the years to both political parties.
Clearly in SF there are plenty of people that for them "open minded" means always supporting one type of view
Posted by: someone at February 17, 2011 8:53 PM
@someone: happy to share my thoughts with you, or anyone else.
Assume the 1906 quake did not shake this particular location "hard enough" to make it come down. That's entirely possible. The entire city did NOT shake or collapse.
But perhaps the next big one will be bigger, and certainly COULD shake this location violently enough to cause collapse. Clear, simple thought: if your house in this area, or the city is up to the most current seismic code on reinforced concrete foundations, it stands a much BETTER chance of not collapsing.
No guarantees of course, and I didnt say there were, but structural engineering principles of 2011 are pretty advanced in knowing how to strengthen your property.
But yes, within the context of your question, I feel there is only one way to spend your money wisely: Put money into an expensive renovation, kitchen, bath, whatever and do not upgrade the structure and you will be wasting your money when the next big quake comes.
Posted by: noearch at February 18, 2011 10:29 AM
Do you mind explaining to me how this 19th structure still stands?
I would add that a lot of 19th century structures still standing had to be put back on their foundations -- or on new brick foundations -- after being jostled by the quake.
Also, if this foundation is original, the mortar in 1906 was only six years old.
Posted by: BobN at February 18, 2011 12:47 PM
60 Normandie just came on @ 9.5 as predicted. Seems a little high, but it's very nice. This could cause some of the other homes in this range that are a bit more stately to get a second look.
Posted by: eddy at February 18, 2011 1:02 PM
"Assume the 1906 quake did not shake this particular location "hard enough" to make it come down. That's entirely possible. The entire city did NOT shake or collapse."
The majority of destruction in 1906 wasn't directly due to EQ shaking but rather the resulting firestorm. When the Big One comes whether or not your home survives might depend less on how well it is designed than on the fire hazards that ignite upwind or downhill from your home.
Aside from structures that can stay intact better through a big quake, SF really is not much different from 1906. Same wind patterns, geography, and street geometries. Buildings made of the same flammable materials.
I'm not criticizing SFFD because they're only as capable as their budget allows, but after the Big One they may be fighting fires 100X larger than anything seen since 1906.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at February 18, 2011 1:18 PM
I'm amazed how some people will still validate the strength and appropriateness of brick foundations over new reinforced concrete ones.
It's your money. Go ahead and over pay for a glitzy kitchen, while the foundation crumbles around you.
Posted by: noearch at February 18, 2011 3:33 PM
I actually don't think the 9.5 is that high for Normandie... However, I'm not a big fan of the reverse floor plan. Kitchen and dining on the top floor? You then have to spend a lot of time in an elevator in your own house.
also @someone... I don't care that much about an individual's politics... The signs were these strange handwritten posters that looked more "crazy grandpa in attic" than anything else...
Posted by: Denis at February 18, 2011 3:59 PM
@Denis, point taken. re-Normandie, it sold for $11M 5 years ago, and $6M in 2000 so 9.5 doesn't seem like a stretch.
@noearch, no one is arguing that new foundation isn't better. But I can tell you there is no way I'd be willing to work with someone with your kind of attitude.
Thankfully for you, there are plenty of people with my kind of $$$ that NEED someone to tell them what to do.
Posted by: someone at February 18, 2011 10:24 PM
LOL...good luck mr someone.
Posted by: noearch at February 19, 2011 11:21 AM
Thinking a little more about "someone" complaining about my "attitude", I probably should clarify this:
My professional opinions and advice can sometimes be seen as "attitude" by those who don't know me. That's simply my job, as an architect, to help steer and direct my clients in the best direction for their project, with regard to spending money wisely and building what works for them.
At first some clients don't like my initial advice, but overwhelmingly, when the project is finished they thank me for the final design solution. You could call it "tough architectural love", or just solid, business advice.
They pay me for that, and that's what I deliver. If you are offended by that approach, then you perhaps need an architect (or other design professional) who is more of a "friend" or yes man to you than an architect.
Just a thought.
Posted by: noearch at February 19, 2011 11:40 AM
This house requires very significant work - every aspect of it needs re-doing from the foundation to plumbing to electric. It's a gorgeous house, but gonna cost at least $1 - 1.5 million to get it upgraded properly. Plus at least 1 - 1.5 years to get it done. Will probably get bought by someone who doesn't understand that it's gonna turn into a money pit.
Posted by: lotsawork at February 20, 2011 5:23 PM
Hey Mr Lotsawork,
You don't know much about this neighborhood. There are many people happily living within a few blocks of this house, in houses needing work just like this one. It is not a matter of money. This house is acceptable as it is. Some will want to change things, but some will not.
Posted by: Conifer at February 21, 2011 3:16 AM
This house on Divis. does need work and updating systems can be very pricey, not to mention cosmetic finishes. Eddy, you didn't list 2705 Buchanan $3,295,000 which has been one of my favorites. Great mix of traditional and new. 2705 Buchanan's systems are all upgraded, house has new 3 car garage with major seismic upgrades and is priced at $872/sq foot "according to the floorplan." Thoughts....
Posted by: Curious at February 21, 2011 6:20 PM
I totally love houses with major seismic upgrades; always close to my heart..:)
Posted by: noearch at February 21, 2011 6:35 PM
already in escrow...
Posted by: Denis at February 22, 2011 4:54 PM
I like 2705 Buchanan. Lack of yard going to be an issue most families and some of that sqft should be discounted in the basement. If this home were on an east/west street it would sell in a second. The 2207 Scott comp-to-be hurts this house from a price/value perspective. 2705 is bigger on paper and cheaper $/psf, but for about the same price you're getting a much better quality house/location overall. $2.8 is where I would have this home priced, but I've not really given it much thought other than right now for 1 minute. Squarefootage isn't listed so I can't really comment. But I think this place should easily get $800 psf if those views are legitimate.
Posted by: eddy at February 22, 2011 5:50 PM
Obviously, I'm not surprised this is in contract. D7 is actually on fire. Curious to see if it goes over/under/@
Posted by: eddy at February 22, 2011 5:51 PM
Since so many D7s are now asking around $800, can anybody provide a realistic price per square foot for 2100 Vallejo and 2090 Vallejo??? Both homes never found buyers in spite of major price reductions and years on the market. Should this D7 location demand significantly less?
Posted by: Contango at February 22, 2011 10:33 PM
Both those homes are still over priced and have been discussed here previously. 2090 has a website that still lists this home for $14.8M. No credibility for that listing. And I've given up on caring much about 2100 at this point. Either the owners want to sell or not. I'm assuming not since they both refuse to drop the price to market levels, which is probably well below the $10M mark is my guess. 2090 would have been hard to sell all along at any price, but 2100 just chased the market down. That house could have sold for north of $10 in 2007/2008 but I don't think so anymore. The peak market for those homes is moat likely not coming back in the next 10 years.
Posted by: eddy at February 23, 2011 9:39 AM
I think 2090 is being rented out now...
2100 looks like it needs a little TLC at this point. I still think it could have sold in the high 9s, but it seems people who have toured the home have said differently. Once again, the sellers kind of missed the boat. The 10+ million home market needs a robust stock market. I would've priced the home more aggressively earlier this year, and probably painted the exterior.... With the market heading south again, there's not much hope of that home moving.
The two Pacific homes are in the same boat. Lots of work needed to justify their current price tags.
Posted by: Denis at February 23, 2011 11:13 AM
60 Normandie is pending.
Posted by: eddy at March 28, 2011 5:50 PM
The sale of 2623 Divisadero closed escrow today with a reported contract price at asking ($3,095,000) and $794 per square foot.
Posted by: SocketSite at April 6, 2011 1:22 PM
I think I posted this in another thread, but this house seems to have had a lot of contingent items that needed to be dealt with prior to close. It looks like it had some foundation work done, and maybe gas tanks removed... hence the price reduction. Anyway, I look forward to seeing what the buyers do to this place!
Posted by: Denis at April 6, 2011 2:32 PM
Yeah, this has lots of potential. Congrat's.
Posted by: eddy at April 6, 2011 4:47 PM