July 29, 2011
1124 Stanyan Returns Recapitalized, Reconfigured, And Remodeled
A fully remodeled 1124 Stanyan Street has just returned to the market. As plugged-in people know, the single-family home was purchased for $1,280,000 in May 2008 before being gutted, abandoned mid-remodel, and then lost to the lenders which sold the unfinished property for $1,350,000 this past September.
Asking $2,095,000 for the "classic Edwardian" which has been "configured for today's modern expectations" and listed without any square footage (versus 3,047 per its listing when purchased or 2,175 in 2008).
∙ Listing: 1124 Stanyan (3/3.5) - $2,095,000 [MLS]
∙ Save $381,000 (If You've Got The Cash) [SocketSite]
∙ If At First A Second Doesn’t Succeed, Try, Try Again… [SocketSite]
First Published: July 29, 2011 2:00 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Good to see that this place got saved, but wow -- someone really bought that shell for $1,350,000? Pretty thin on the profit margin by the time you pay the transfer tax, commission, carrying costs, and of course the remodel itself.
And, I don't see it going over $2 million -- that is the biggest thing. I think it is a $1.9 kind of place. Busy street, small yard, and very dark inside.
I was one of the bidders when it was sold in "as is" condition, and got to walk through it in gutted condition. Apparently there was some sort of fraud with the first listing agent? Anyone know the story?
Posted by: sf builder at July 29, 2011 2:59 PM
The eastern side of the house does not look "very dark." Is it?
Posted by: lamarck at July 29, 2011 4:30 PM
@lamarck. When I toured the project, I was struck by how dark the lower two floors were especially. There may be some skylights on the top floor, but if so they were covered over when I saw it. Many buildings in SF at least have a decent lightwell on one or both sides, but this place does not. (It has a small lightwell by the stairs, but this has no impact on overall light.)
(Of course, when I toured it there were rats in the basement and a pile of illegally removed asbestos in the back yard, slowly disintegrating under a pile of weeds!!) ;-)
It helps that the buyer opened up the wall between the kitchen and dining room -- but this cuts both ways in the sense that you lose that nice private office that was there before. This house isn't so big that it really needs two dining areas 20 feet apart.
So, it shows better with the wall open -- but I think it makes it harder to live in.
Also, I believe they kept the old windows/doors at the back wall -- that is too bad. Those windows needed to go, and that (to me) is a bad sign as to the quality and decisions made for the overall remodel. It screams "cheap flip job." Buyer beware on this place.
Posted by: sf builder at July 30, 2011 11:52 AM
@sf builder Thanks for responding! do your base your perception that the back doors/windows haven't changed on your memory of the trim on them? was it there before? it looks kind of contemporary. Was the private office previously where the kitchen dining area now is, or the family area?
Posted by: lamarck at August 2, 2011 10:21 AM
the back doors/windows had been replaced -- but they are just wrong for the house -- cheap divided lights, and I don't remember the brand -- but when I saw them it just stuck out that they needed to go. IF you look at the previous thread of comments on this place other people thought the same thing.
The private office/room was where the dining room is. The current layout is OK for one person, or a couple without kids -- but given that it is a family-style home, it is likely there will be one or two kids -- and then it is nice to be able to close a door here and there and have some privacy, noise protection, etc etc.
Even for a couple - if someone is in the kitchen doing dishes or cooking, you hear that noise throughout the whole first floor. In many SF places you have the nice, heavy pocket doors to address this issue - but if I remember right they are gone in this place.
Anyway, hope it sells -- I was willing to buy it for under $1 million when it was a shell -- but I'm still shocked someone paid $1,350,000 and expects to flip it. I can see an end-user paying that -- then it makes sense.
Anyway, check out the previous thread -- some good info there.
Posted by: @lamarck at August 2, 2011 12:08 PM
It went pending within 5 days.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at August 4, 2011 10:02 AM
Sold for 2.3. (And I'm scratching my head as I sign off for the day.)
Posted by: [anon.ed] at September 2, 2011 3:15 PM