268 Lombard #1 Living

As a plugged-in tipster and we first reported two years ago:

After being owned by an artist, with sculptures adorning its decks, [268 Lombard #1] was bought in 2005 for $2.225M by an out of town owner…and was never really lived in for 3 years.

After being listed for the same price in 2005, the author of the Stinking Rose Cookbook, Jerry DalBozzo bought the property in November 2008 for $2.207M, and has renovated the place over the course of a few months in a decidedly Mediterranean style.

We all thought this Italian chef/author was going to move in there, and were awaiting the smell of garlic filling up the air, but were surprised to see the place back on the market for $4.895M.

Withdrawn from the market at the end of 2010 without a reported sale, yesterday 268 Lombard #1 returned to the market listed for $4,650,000 with extra emphasis on the view.

Once again, the two-level condo is 2,546 square feet per a previous listing and we’ll note the new La Cornue in the kitchen, having replaced the lowly Wolf.

268 Lombard #1 Kitchen

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Joshua

    $1,826 psf — bidding war!!!!

  2. Posted by Micheal

    Nice! Hard to tell which model, but that’s a $40-50K stove.

  3. Posted by DataDude

    The next America’s Cup race is in San Francisco, August 21, 2012.
    So anybody interested in buying this condo to throw a perfect-view party has a little more than a month to close escrow, move in and hire Culinary Eye Catering (if they aren’t already booked).

  4. Posted by Mark F.

    Nice, but an absurd price.

  5. Posted by dakota

    $5,360 HOA. Is that monthly?

  6. Posted by futurist

    Beautiful. Location, views.
    And that stove. The best.
    I think the place will sell for over asking.

  7. Posted by formerly%whatever

    “Current monthly HOA dues of $446.67 assessed annually includes water, garbage and common area insurance”

  8. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    I can understand the bling factor of a $50K stove but does it really cook 100X better than a $500 stove?
    Cuz I’m all for cooking better food…

  9. Posted by futurist

    Of course it doesn’t cook food 100 times better than a “cheaper” stove, such as a Wolf. That’s not the point. Both do the same thing.
    Same thing with a BMW vs a Toyota. Both get you from point A to point B.
    Each one just makes you feel different getting from point A to point B.
    Besides, choices are nice to have. We all love choices.

  10. Posted by lol

    Quick question to the architect, futurist:
    When you design a remodel, are the appliances included in the total envelope you use for your billing?
    In short do you bill extra if your client goes for the top of the range?

  11. Posted by Legacy Dude

    Can’t wait for another rich out-of-towner to buy it, rererenovate it, and put it back up for sale again. How exciting.

  12. Posted by futurist

    @ lol:
    No
    and
    No.

  13. Posted by EH

    Hah, Legacy. I have to wonder if there’s an inside-baseball incentive to de-apple residences here in the city.

  14. Posted by lolcat_94123

    Why would I want to buy a place w/ a $50k stove? That means I have to pay 1.15% (or whatever) property tax on said stove every year. Screw that. I’ll over pay for my own $50k stove thank you very much.
    Nice place though.

  15. Posted by futurist

    Using that logic, though, means you also have to keep paying 1.15% property tax every year ALSO on the windows, the doors, that shower head, those door handles, the downlights….etc.
    That’s just part of the normal real estate transaction. I suppose you could tell the seller to remove the high end stove, reduce the price and then you put the stove you want in, once you move in.

  16. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Except that the windows, the doors, that shower head, those door handles, the downlights….etc. are basically part of the house and a lot cheaper than major appliances. Though major appliances are a bear to haul into the home they are otherwise easily replaced. You can’t say the same for a window.
    The line isn’t crisp though. It is common for owners to exclude their expensive chandeliers from the sale.
    A $50K stove is reminiscent the $1000 I am Rich iPhone app albeit with a little more functionality.

  17. Posted by futurist

    Yea, that’s what I was trying to illustrate to lolcat.
    The expensive stove can easily be removed from the sale. Get a cheaper one and you still can make great muffins. Then you don’t have to complain about paying property taxes on the fabulous french stove.

  18. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    The property tax issue makes me wonder whether any sales of homes fitted with high end fixtures attempt to use a loophole to reduce taxes.
    A clause like: “Sale excludes the two Baccarat chandeliers, kitchen appliances, custom carved oak front door, steam shower, sauna, and solid gold toilet” could be written into the contract at closing time. Then a separate non-real estate agreement could be written up to purchase those same items and the sum payed by the buyer on both contracts would equal the offer that the seller originally had accepted. Both contracts are signed at the same time and even though all that stuff bolted to the house was excluded would remain in place just as if it were sold with the house.
    This loophole could be taken to extremes, separating every fixture that *could* be removed from the house and lowering the eventual property taxes computed based on the house sale. There’s probably plenty of room to overestimate the cost of those excluded fixtures as well.

  19. Posted by DataDude

    @ Milkshake – sounds tempting. Only one problem: the real estate agents on both sides would frown and shake their heads, because a lower sales price means lower commission and lower market comps. It’s all about lining their pockets and nudging prices up up up.

  20. Posted by anon

    ^ maybe, if you get a lazy assessor. Assessed value for property tax purposes is based on the fair market value of the home (which includes fixtures), not the sale price. Often the two are the same. But not always.

  21. Posted by shza

    ^^ Wouldn’t you just inform the assessor that the fixtures were not part of the property being transferred and therefore should also not be part of the property assessed?
    I agree with MOD that there is plenty of room for fraud and overuse of such a “loophole,” but the core point seems perfectly just to me. It’s silly that you should pay taxes in perpetuity on a stove if it’s purchased along with a house but not on the exact same stove if you buy it the same day as your house, but you buy it separately, from a high-end commercial kitchen appliance seller.

  22. Posted by shza

    ^^^Compounding the issue, luxury items like this stove (or even a “lowly” Wolf range) seem to have a halo effect on the property as a whole. A friend of mine replaced whatever generic $1000 range was in his place with a Wolf right after buying it, and the assessment immediately went up more than the $4k differential; the assessor saw the kitchen as more “gourmet” and viewed the house in that light (the kind of house that has a gourmet kitchen with a high-end range).
    The wish price on this place likely reflects some of that concept as well.

  23. Team Energy (France) is apparently looking for temp housing. They can probably help with one or two mortgage payments.
    http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2012/07/13/ok_wheres_your_billionaire_sponsor_when_you_need_him.php

  24. Posted by lolcat_94123

    ^ didn’t this exact scenario happen and cause discussion here maybe a year or so ago? I remember it was a listing for (I think) that 333 bush street building, the one that’s like 40+ floors with really cool outdoor space way up top but has a really steep HOA.
    Anyways, some realtor woman came in here bragging about how she set up a deal there into two discrete transations: one for the unit and one for the furnishings. And she exclaimed about how she was able to get such a lower tax value for her client. She was then quickly slammed (rightfully so) by us here for openly bragging about tax fraud.
    Anyone remember that – or have a link?

  25. Posted by lolcat_94123
  26. Posted by SocketSite

    The sale of 268 Lombard #1 closed escrow today with a reported contract price of $4,600,000. Call it $1,807 per square foot per its listed square footage in 2008.

Add a Comment

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