July 18, 2012

Armistead Maupin's Storied San Francisco Home Hitting The Market

27 Belmont Avenue (www.SocketSite.com)

From Armistead Maupin's novel "The Night Listener":

Out of habit, I approached the house from the sidewalk across the street, where I could see it in context: three narrow stories notched into the wooded slope. Its new cedar shingles were still too pallid for its dark green trim, but another season or two of rain would turn them into tarnished silver. I’d been eagerly awaiting that. I’d wanted the place to look ancestral, as if we had lived there forever.

The house was 27 Belmont Avenue, which Maupin has owned since 1993, the year in which Maupin’s "Tales of the City" miniseries was first broadcast in America.

Tomorrow, the Parnassus Heights property at 27 Belmont will hit the market priced by Bernie Katzmann at $1,198,000 as Maupin and his husband are leaving his storied San Francisco behind and heading to Santa Fe.

And yes, the shingles have since tarnished.

UPDATE: 27 Belmont has officially hit the market, listed at 1,606 square feet and looking a lot less tarnished on the inside.

27 Belmont Avenue Living

∙ Listing: 27 Belmont (3/2) 1,606 sqft - $1,198,000 [talesofthecityhome.com]
Armistead Maupin [facebook.com]
Have You Heard The One About The House With Over 50 Offers? [SocketSite]

First Published: July 18, 2012 12:45 PM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

I dare any developer or architect to build a home like this today.
I double dare them.

Posted by: sf at July 18, 2012 12:52 PM

Smallish lot, smallish house, big name.

Is this still 1110sf?

The question is whether the name of the seller will be a big asset or not. Is new tech money actually aware of Maupin's imprint on SF culture? Are people in this market segment ready to live in 1110sf?

Posted by: lol at July 18, 2012 1:57 PM

"Are people in this market segment ready to live in 1110sf?"

Wow you must be from the burbs!

Posted by: sf at July 18, 2012 2:03 PM

Nope. 1110sf is small for a house today, even in SF.

My point for this precise property: to have a significant "bidding war" to occur with new tech money, you must have either something perfect or something with obvious potential.

This property might fall into the second category I think, meaning this could be interesting for someone willing to spend the cash to expand. But with the history behind the house, beware of the preservationistas.

Or maybe someone will want to keep it as is. But overbidding on it? Hard to tell.

Posted by: lol at July 18, 2012 2:32 PM

Wow you must be from the burbs!

What a silly comment. Aside from a few "look at this nine-foot-wide house!" posts, almost every home profiled on this site is larger than 1110 sf, some (like the property immediately below) 5-20x larger. With 2 kids, I wouldn't live in anything anywhere near that small, city or not. Particularly for 1.2M or (more likely) more.

Posted by: shza at July 18, 2012 2:33 PM

for a family with two kids it would be small, but for DINKS it's just fine. More space would be nice, but it's not necessary.

I have no idea about the price, but the size is fine depending on one's needs.

Posted by: lyqwyd at July 18, 2012 3:09 PM

I will wait for the listing photos because I have never been inside, but just looking at the exterior makes me think that the "perception" of space here will be rathre large.

A single room 5000 SF loft can seem small, but this looks like an entire private world.

Posted by: redseca2 at July 18, 2012 5:32 PM

For any of you familiar with Bernie Katzmann's "specials"- here's another one! The realtor who happily sets up a multitude of hapless hopefuls to bid on a seriously underpriced property. Is there any chance the real estate "professional" bodies might reign in this scoundrel ?

Posted by: Bernie at July 18, 2012 9:28 PM

Posted by: 94114 at July 19, 2012 8:25 PM

The garage leaks and is useless it will have to be repaired or replaced. I hope they disclosed that. It is a small "cozy" house.

Posted by: Louise at July 20, 2012 8:20 AM

Obviously a bidding war. We rent in the neighborhood and would buy it if we could, even with our 3 kids. I'll guess worth 1.9, will go for 2.1 with the bidding war + local celebrity.

Posted by: Parn at July 20, 2012 9:55 AM

Love the pics, it really is a charming house. And yes, I expect it has a little extra with the Maupin connection. I know that it makes no sense economically, but I would pay a premium. But I'm one of those guys who read Tales when I was 18 and vowed to move to San Francisco.

Posted by: curmudgeon at July 20, 2012 10:05 AM

Cute house, but you have to deal with the long walk up from the 1-car garage, a tiny yard, living on 3 levels, and a long slog up the hill if you walk to Cole St.

But cute goes a long way, and the street is quiet and filled with charming homes...my guess is someone will pay around $1.5- $1.6M for its 1606 square feet.

Posted by: redboat at July 22, 2012 8:45 PM

Around this neighborhood the lore is that nice houses go for $1000/square foot. This one counts as nice -- not only views, but green outlooks in multiple directions. Plus, the house has gotten a lot of love from somebody with taste. So yeah, there are comps for a 1.6M price.

Posted by: around1905 at July 22, 2012 10:22 PM

1.64. Sold

Posted by: Eddy at August 26, 2012 6:45 PM

Posted by: SocketSite at August 27, 2012 10:23 AM

This used to be my family's house where we lived that we moved into in 1989 and was born here in 1991 and we sold it to Armistead in 1993. It's sad that this house is going to pass from famous hand into another owner

Posted by: Kristian Castellano at September 28, 2012 7:51 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:

« Seeking Twenty-Five Million, 2808 Broadway Sells for Seventeen | HOME | San Francisco's City Attorney Sues Short-Term Rental Scofflaws »