1948 Sutter Street
As we wrote last month with respect to the remodeled single-family home at 1948 Sutter:

Having been renovated and expanded in 2004, the now 2,980 square foot Victorian “on the vibrant Fillmore Corridor” at 1948 Sutter Street sold for $2,405,000 in 2006.

Despite the closing of Café Kati, we’d argue the aforementioned corridor has improved over the past five years, but we’ll still call it apples-to-apples to be for the big white house which is back on the market and asking $2,195,000, nine percent below its 2006 sale.

Today, the sale of 1948 Sutter Street closed escrow with a reported contract price of $2,245,000. Call it another “over asking” sale according to industry stats, but 6.6 percent ($160,000) below the price at which it sold in 2006.
As a couple of plugged-in readers referenced, the sellers of 1948 Sutter Street have moved from one “sweet” house to another up the hill. And yes, the space which Café Kati vacated has since reopened as Roostertail.
While No Two Snowflakes Are Exactly The Same… [SocketSite]
Catering To the 21st Century Family (And Pocketbook) [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by James

    That’s a funny “driveway to nowhere”. If it were mine, the first thing I’d do would be to put up a little fence and make it a garden.

  2. Posted by wrath

    it should be a garage but cost savings……
    it’s a nice house though – other than the housing units across the street.

  3. Posted by meep

    6% loss during the worse economic downturn since the great depression ?
    not too shabby.

  4. Posted by tipster

    Yes, a “mere” quarter million+ dollar loss.
    Shabby.

  5. Posted by A.T.

    That is a good result – relatively speaking. Down 6% in just under six years, plus another 14% due to inflation. They are lucky they bought about 18 months before the SF peak.
    I agree that this house looks great and that this neighborhood is improving about as rapidly as anywhere in SF.

  6. Posted by futurist

    Planning code strictly forbids parking OR paving over the required front yard open space within the setback.
    Someone either did this without permits (done all the time, unfortunately) or they paid someone off.

  7. Posted by eddy

    Yeah, they were so concerned that they only spent +100k over asking on their new place. Phew! And his company isn’t even public yet.
    Facebook rumored to be minting over1 1000 millionaires in its IPO:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/08/us-facebook-millionaires-idUSTRE7B72NK20111208

  8. Posted by [anon.ed]

    “They are lucky they bought about 18 months before the SF peak.”
    You are a magical thinker. Again and again with the “slap mythic macro data onto individual situation” thinking. It’s unbelievable.

  9. Posted by REpornaddict

    They are lucky they bought about 18 months before the SF peak.”
    You are a magical thinker. Again and again with the “slap mythic macro data onto individual situation” thinking. It’s unbelievable.
    agreed I too was around here in 07/08. Most of the posts were about how things had already peaked back in 06/early 07 – despite the median showing otherwise..mix etc..anybody suggesting prices were still rising in late 07/during 08 were laughed out of town, generally…
    But for any 06 apple, its always..the peak was 18 months later now..*facepalm*

  10. Posted by inmycountry

    futurist,
    The parking space was created the in dying days of the Redevelopment Agency’s reign on this neighborhood. Their regulations were sometimes less strict than the Planning Dept. According to DBI online, they did pull a permit, to the tune of $112,000, which sounds high.

  11. Posted by sf

    A garden would be a perfect idea, and since you already have a curb cut, you are able to park there at all times and tow anybody else that blocks it.
    Which leads to another interesting point- can landowners install curb cuts themselves to reserve a parking space in front of their buildings without having to install driveways or garages? this seems like a desirable outcome on all sides- it preserves the historical integrity of buildings without have to tear out the ground floor and add a garage; it saves money and time on the homeowner; the city still gets its fees and taxes for installing curb cuts; there are no ugly garage doors or driveways scarring the exterior; and you are guaranteed 1 car parking (maybe sometimes 2) in front of your property at all times. The downside could be cars always parking there if they don’t see a garage, but red paint and no parking signs on the sidewalk would remedy that.

  12. Posted by futurist

    OH, I do hope sf is joking, because that comment is seriously one of more insane ones I have heard recently.
    Curbcuts are FOR real driveways and real garages, not some clever, sneaky way for a homeowner to selfishly secure their own ILLEGAL parking spot.
    Are you serious, sf? Really, that’s what you were thinking?
    Wow.
    also, @ inmycountry: Whether or not that parking space was created by the Redev agency is irrelevant, plus I don’t believe you. For the benefit of our urban environment, front yard open spaces should be landscaped, not reserved for a vehicle, except when it’s a real driveway leading to a real garage. ok?

  13. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Just because there’s a curb cut doesn’t mean anything. If it’s a curb cut in front of a space that isn’t a driveway, anybody can take it. It’s not exclusive.

  14. Posted by futurist

    Well, mostly I would agree with that. Curbcuts are intended to mean access to a garage, or legal off street parking space. And yes, anyone can park in a curbcut that is not legal.
    I’m pretty sure that a homeowner can NOT just put a curb cut in. You need a permit and proof of a legitimate driveway/garage reason.

  15. Posted by inmycountry

    futurist,
    I’m not promoting this idea. I’m with you…I think it’s ghastly!
    I happen to live nearby and watched this go in about six years ago. There used to a three foot high retaining wall at the sidewalk and a garden that sloped up to the house. It look similar to house next door as seen in this Google Street View:
    http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&sugexp=pfwe&cp=3&gs_id=8&xhr=t&q=1943+penny&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=1024&bih=482&wrapid=tljp132363617003104&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl
    Also, I didn’t say the parking space was “created by the Redevelopment Agency” but, rather that they used to have jurisdiction over entitlements in this neighborhood, formally known as A-2 on their maps. Their reign has since expired and approvals are now granted through SF Planning Dept.
    As for not believing me, you can look it up. It’s DBI permit #200502014450

  16. Posted by inmycountry

    don’t know what happend there…try this
    http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl

  17. Posted by futurist

    Yes, it is ghastly, ugly, cheesy and I believe non code compliant.
    Plus it’s greedy and selfish for whoever the hell the owner is for getting rid of green space to “put up a parking lot…”
    Apologies and thanks to Joni Mitchell for that one..:)

Add a Comment

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