January 30, 2012

Live Like Tim Lincecum (Two Year $40.5M Contract Not Included)

141 Hampshire

As a plugged-in reader notes, the condo Tim Lincecum rented in 2010, and from which he was accused of stealing and destroying $200,000 worth of household items in 2011, has returned to the market listed for $1,795,000.

Having been listed for as much as $3,500,000 in 2008 but withdrawn from the market in 2010 last asking $1,700,000 prior to Lincecum's leasing, the current listing for the 2,790 square foot 141 Hampshire Street Unit B sports photos from its pre-Lincecum days.

141 Hampshire Unit B

Bonus points for identifying $200,000 worth of "bedding, doors, carpet, pillows, kitchenware, linens, furniture, household appliances, art work, decorations, patio furniture, lights, lamps, and mirrors" which could have been stolen or destroyed.

∙ Listing: 141 Hampshire Street Unit #B (3/3) 2,790 sqft - $1,795,000 [redfin.com]
Inside Tim Lincecum's Old Party Pad (Pre-Alleged Trashing) [SocketSite]
There Might Have Been Smoke, But No Report Of A Fire... [SocketSite]

First Published: January 30, 2012 8:15 AM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

Or, more to the point, identifying "$200,000 of new stuff in the house." I certainly haven't heard of silverware or pillows coming with a house purchase as anything but an aberration (outside of 'fully furnished').

Posted by: EH at January 30, 2012 9:34 AM

I don't see how this place could have ever listed for $3.5M. Was that for the whole building maybe? This place is 2790 sq feet, that would have been $1250/sq foot, which is more like Millennium pricing, not what I would expect to see in an industrial part of The Mission.

Even today's pricing at $650 per sq foot seems pretty aggressive, given the neighborhoods median of under $500. This one is in for further rounds of cuts.

[Editor’s Note: Nope, the $3,500,000 was just for this unit as Timmy wasn’t the only one smoking something back in early 2008.]

Posted by: NoeValleyJim at January 30, 2012 10:02 AM

if the sale of the adjacent shopping mall went through and redevelopment occurred, any thoughts on the value?

[Editor's Note: From Seals Stadium, To Strip Mall, To 1,800 Rental Units On 16th?]

Posted by: Jay at January 30, 2012 10:18 AM

The reason for shopping center sale is because the current owner (JV w very capable developer) can't pull off the redevelopment themselves. Long term Safeway lease + grocery store required parking = highly unlikely redevelopment.

Posted by: ricker at January 30, 2012 10:46 AM

Beautiful place, great views!

Posted by: Fluffy at January 30, 2012 8:01 PM

The asking price for 141 Hampshire Street Unit #B has just been reduced $122,000 (6.8%), now asking $1,673,000.

Posted by: SocketSite at February 14, 2012 6:50 AM


Posted by: john at April 15, 2012 9:42 PM

As john notes, 141 Hampshire Street Unit #B has sold. And now we have the sale price: Lincecum’s Old Party Pad Gets Traded.

Posted by: SocketSite at April 18, 2012 2:21 PM

Post a comment

(required - will be published)

(required - will not be published, sold, or shared)

(optional - your "Posted by" name will link to this URL)

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Continue Perusing SocketSite:

« Sorry Cardinal, But Let’s Hear It For The Blue And Gold... | HOME | Glass Tower To Rise Over SF Mining Exchange Building On Bush »