August 29, 2011
Apples-To-Apples (And Wood) In The Inner Sunset: 1383 11th Avenue
The new kitchen and half bath at the bottom of the stairs were slotted in to the well kept old Edwardian in the year 2000, shortly after being purchased for $550,000.
Six years later, the three-bedroom home traded for $1,000,000 in late 2006. And as a tipster notes, 1383 11th Avenue is now back on the market and listed for $1,099,000.
∙ Listing: 1383 11th Avenue (3/2.5) 1,848 sqft - $1,099,000 [MLS]
First Published: August 29, 2011 8:30 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Needs more HDR.
Posted by: EH at August 29, 2011 9:22 AM
I never would have guessed this was a SFH from the outside. It looks like 2 flats. What's up with those cabinets in the bedrooms? And is it weird to anyone else the way that modern kitchen is so open to the old dining room?
Posted by: SFBuyer at August 29, 2011 9:44 AM
Ugh, stop with the HDR.
Posted by: SFer at August 29, 2011 10:12 AM
I agree the kitchen looks totally out of place. And while I don't really mind the HDR images, I don't really get the last photo of Irving. I know it's got some decent food and shopping, but it's certainly not an attractive street. It only serves to bring down the house in my opinion.
Posted by: lyqwyd at August 29, 2011 10:35 AM
That picture of Irving is very ghetto.
Posted by: anonconfused at August 29, 2011 10:59 AM
"Perfect for entertaining"
Amazing that the agent would bring up the subject, where the dining room seats 4 and I've seen bigger kitchens in 1/1 apartments.
The photoshopped stretching is ridiculous. If you look at the bathroom door in the photo above, the image has been stretched in one dimension so much that the bathroom door looks like it's about two times too large to close. The 5' wide door next to it is similarly absurd, and you'd have to take two steps on each stairstep to traverse them.
Once can only imagine the lies and other distortions you can expect to encounter.
Posted by: tipster at August 29, 2011 11:04 AM
The lot is only 1072 square feet, according to public records. (Of course, it was 1072 square feet in 2006, and 1072 square feet in 2000...)
Posted by: Jeremy at August 29, 2011 11:13 AM
Strange, from the map it appears the building takes up almost the entire, but the photo of the yard seems a decent size, and says it's accessible from the laundry room. I wonder if it's an easement or shared.
Posted by: lyqwyd at August 29, 2011 11:23 AM
I think the backstory here is that it was originally a very small 2 unit converted to SFH at some point. The lot is very small (listed at just over 1k sq ft) and the only yard is a portion of the space shown. It literally backs up against a building on Judah. Equivalent condition slightly larger SFH's on full size lots have sold for $1.2 - 1.3 recently. These have the benefit of better flow + yard. Seems ambitious on pricing and simply trying to cover transaction costs.
Posted by: simpr at August 29, 2011 11:27 AM
typo, meant to say "takes up almost the entire small lot"
Posted by: lyqwyd at August 29, 2011 11:30 AM
The building goes all the way back to the lot line. The yard is actually a side yard with no fence between it and the corner building's side yard. Must have been one lot and then subdivided.
Posted by: Marten at August 29, 2011 1:11 PM
Is that a stained glass of a preying mantis?
Posted by: bernalkid at August 29, 2011 2:37 PM
Holy Cow...you guys need to stop hating! I have been to numerous concerts at this house with 40 + people in attendance. This house is a wonderful house for entertaining, and I am bummed I bought my house 6 months ago before this one went on the market. This house is gorgeous and in my opinion it's underpriced.
Don't judge a book by it's cover...go and view the house.
Posted by: Rachel at August 30, 2011 9:54 AM
I agree, the kitchen looks brutally small and strangely positioned as part of the dining room. The street it's on is ok, sprinkled with a few run down homes and ugly apartment buildings and this house is clearly the nicest on the block...not a good position to be in.
Posted by: DOUG at August 30, 2011 4:03 PM
@Rachel, who's hating? All I've seen so far is people stating facts. I guess some are hating on the HDR wide angle photos...
Posted by: lyqwyd at August 30, 2011 4:57 PM