2420 Pacific
As we wrote eight months ago with respect to 2420 Pacific:

Designed by Julius Ernest Krafft and built in 1902, it was just under a year ago when a plugged-in reader first noticed a move to foreclose upon 2420 Pacific with a Notice of Trustee Sale (NOTS) filed last June.

As far as we know the foreclosure never happened but the big Pacific Heights property is now on the market and asking $12,800,000. Tax records report 7,263 square feet and seven bedrooms, but the listing touts 10,650 square feet per “appraisal” and ten beds.

Five months ago the list price for the Julius castle was reduced 9 percent to $11,700,000. And late last night the list price was reduced another $1,900,000 (16 percent), now asking $9,800,000.
And with respect to that aforementioned foreclosure, it would appear the defaulted upon loans have been refinanced with a new second for $1,800,000 and third for $1,000,000. The first mortgage for $2,009,000 was written in 1994.
∙ Listing: 2420 Pacific Avenue (10/8.5) – $9,800,000 [MLS]
A Julius (Not Julius’) Castle Of A Different Kind [SocketSite]
We Should All Be So Fortunate As To Have A Fireplace In Our Foyer [SocketSite]
2830 Pacific Scoop: Still Not Sold, But Leased With An Option To Buy [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by lol

    No Mormon joke today? It’s 10 bedrooms after all.
    2 refis for almost 3M? That’s a bit of extracted equity. They should have gone all the way and refi-ed to whatever an appraiser would have valued the place for in 2008. Then move to Brazil and send the keys through the mail.

  2. Posted by EH

    No Mormon joke today? It’s 10 bedrooms after all.
    In PH I’m gonna go with Catholics.

  3. Posted by Mole Man

    Mansion markets are different. The Mormon joke was for a relatively ordinary building and location with an unusual number of bedrooms. In this context the number of bedrooms is not unusual. Is that really so hard to understand? Is the joy of acting miffed really that good?
    Back to the property, my guess is that this is headed for a selling price of just above $7 million. Unfortunately, it is hard to value a property where the measure of the floor area varies over a wide range.

  4. Posted by lol

    Hey, I guess no-one saw the tongue in cheek. There’s no app for it yet I guess.
    I have met a few very wealthy mormons a while ago. They could have bought this mansion, by the way. Only 4 kids though, but an extended family.

  5. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    “I guess no-one saw the tongue in cheek. There’s no app for it yet I guess.”
    There is, and it even runs on ancient computers like the TRS-80 :

  6. Posted by lol

    Sorry, still using my ZX80 or Canon X07 depending on the mood ;). Not a rich kid like you…

  7. Posted by Lori

    This house has an identity crisis. Each bathroom seems to be from a different era. I’d be spending all my time in the back sunroom.

  8. Posted by Kazee

    I have not experienced that much wood since college

  9. Posted by Kurt Brown

    LOLzeriffic @Kazee

  10. Posted by Real SF

    I have a shrinking feeling.

  11. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    I wonder whether the erection of that carport elicited a stiff reaction from the neighbors.

  12. Posted by bernalkid

    is that baby sitting on a brick foundation? see pictures 24-25. calling noearch!

  13. Posted by Kurt Brown

    Eye roll @MOD 🙂

  14. Posted by FormerAptBroker

    Milkshake of Despair wrote:
    > I wonder whether the erection of that
    > carport elicited a stiff reaction from
    > the neighbors.
    About 10 years ago a Lamborghini LM002 (aka the “Rambo Lambo”) used to be parked in that carport (aka “car cage”) quite often.

  15. Posted by sanfrantim

    a few years back i inquired about have a covered car port constructed over my home’s parking pad and was told that they are illegal in sf. go figure.

  16. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    This home is over one hundred and eight years old, so even if the car port was an add-on, it could have still pre-dated any municipal prohibition on car port construction by a few decades.
    As far as the financing story goes, I don’t know what to say, except that it seems weird to my unsophisticated-in-mortgage-matters mind.
    The total mortgage debt is about $5M and the seller was asking $12.8M less than a year ago, so presumably the appraisal came in a lot closer to $12M, yet they needed a second and third note. A mortgage written in 1994 couldn’t have an interest rate anywhere close to what the seller could get in 2009, yet they couldn’t (or wouldn’t) refinance into a new, single, lower interest rate loan? The owners should have had multiple mortgage brokers beating a path to his or her door.

  17. Posted by tipster

    Ahh, everyone is now giving up and throwing in the towel. So sad. 2698 Pacific has dropped by nearly 3 mil. Everything else will now follow.
    Trophiest of trophy houses with a bay view are now struggling to hit $900 psft. By next year, it will all be a distant memory.

  18. Posted by eddy

    I guess it depends on your definition of Trophy. 2600 Pacific is Trophy. Selling for $15.5M. That is an eye popping # and +1 to the handful # of homes that have ever sold for north of $10M.
    Ironically, I think the sale of 2600 Pacific along with the sale of 2939 Vallejo are causing these sellers (2689 / 2420 Pacific) to realize where the market for ‘fixer’ mansions is actually trading. Credit Nina for convincing Kirk to sell 2505 Divis last year for a market price that was actually pretty good. Incidentally, 2505 Divis looks like they completed the major work there and the property / structure looks fantastic.
    Anyway, unrealistic seller expectations coming back to reality is not a sign of the apocalypse. The plugged in folks who know these markets have predicted these adjustments since the beginning. I guess I understand the rational needed to bring these whales under your listing umbrella, but no way these listing agents believed these homes could have sold for their original asking. No Way.

Add a Comment

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