September 19, 2012
Born A Three-Unit Building, Rebuilt As A 5,000 Square Foot SF Home
Built as a three-unit Mid-Century building, 350 Collingwood was legally expanded and converted into a 5,246 square foot single-family home circa 2003.
The adjacent landscaped lot at 342 Collingwood (the "Grounds") fetched another $1,000,000, for a total purchase price of $4,595,000 in 2005.
With big views of San Francisco from the living room and enviable roof deck, the Eureka Valley home has returned to the market listed for $4,750,000 together with the lot.
UPDATE: While the parcel with the house at 350 Collingwood sold for $3,595,000 in 2005, as a plugged-in reader correctly catches, the adjacent landscaped and integrated lot at 342 Collingwood sold for $1,000,000, a total purchase price of $4,595,000 in 2005 for the property that's listed as 350 Collingwood today. Since clarified above and our apologies for any confusion.
First Published: September 19, 2012 3:15 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
that aint no 5m facade!
Posted by: mikey woodz at September 19, 2012 3:39 PM
Is this an apple? Was there no work done between the $3.5M sale in 2005 and the $4.75M ask in 2012?
And agreed, that's not even a $1M facade.
[Editor’s Note: It’s apples-to-apples as best we can tell and categorized as such above.]
Posted by: shza at September 19, 2012 3:41 PM
...the facade may not be much but that is a pretty cool house.
Are those vegetarian "meatballs" on the dining room table? Sorry...couldn't resist.
Posted by: CSK at September 19, 2012 3:47 PM
I don't know much about the area it is in, but this place is exquisite. The photos show what appears to be a phenomenal level of craftsmanship and thoughtfulness in design. This is a rare piece, and of sufficiently recent vintage that it isn't a boring collection of boxy rooms like older houses in this price range.
Well done to the designer, the architect, and the craftsman that built this place (and the photographer and stager). I wish the new owners luck in furnishing this home to the level at which it staged.
Posted by: djt at September 19, 2012 3:51 PM
Am I missing something here because the staging doesnt look great and the craftsmanship looks basic for 5m
Posted by: mikey woodz at September 19, 2012 3:58 PM
Convert from multi-units to single family? I was under the impression that such a conversion is impossible. Is this one of those rare exceptions?
Posted by: Samuel at September 19, 2012 4:03 PM
Samuel, we went through this when the 1170 Sacramento penthouse(s) closed escrow. It's not impossible.
My understanding of the current policy is that dwelling unit mergers are only discouraged in order to protect affordable housing, and if the unit in question is already unaffordable, it doesn't require protection, so a merger wouldn't be that hard to get approval for.
Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at September 19, 2012 4:29 PM
I'm a cabinet maker and a homebuilder and the cabinets and home look well crafted.
Posted by: djt at September 19, 2012 4:38 PM
Yes, mikey - you're missing a few things.
The property is like a compound. Been through it before, and it's seriously a one of kind lot (or double lot more accurately). Almost park-like. The interior is cool, really unique space and the views are pretty unreal.
Agree on the color choice of the facade though.. could use a new pallete, lol.
Posted by: Eureka-Eureka at September 19, 2012 4:41 PM
Want it. Beautiful place, fantastic views yet feels secluded.
Posted by: wc1 at September 19, 2012 4:41 PM
This house is not about the facade. It's all about the interior architecture and lot - which really are both very, very impressive. The views are like porn. If 111 Liberty sold where it did, this should sell close to asking, IMO.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker at September 19, 2012 4:44 PM
This house is not about the facade
Keep telling yourself that.
Posted by: eddy at September 19, 2012 5:41 PM
The craftsmanship looks fine. Its the chaotic design that has me reeling. It has been remuddled so many times – there are enough window styles, door styles, floor and paving materials, railing designs, landscape features, etc. that it looks like a building materials showroom not one building.
Posted by: Jim at September 19, 2012 9:06 PM
I'm usually a big fan of eddy's takes on here. But this time, I gotta go with the alternate viewpoint. I think you repaint that facade to something much more simple/clean and it's a super cool, blowout property. Update some of the cosmetics to your own taste... and you have this crazy .25 acre hilltop view mini-estate.
Posted by: Phillip at September 20, 2012 12:01 AM
Can any of the boosters here weigh in on why this place ought to go for 33% over its 2005 apples-to-apples price? Sure, that's nominal dollars but it still seems absolutely nuts to me. Minus the facade, it's certainly nice but it's exactly 0% nicer than it was then.
Posted by: shza at September 20, 2012 2:55 AM
"boosters" ? Guess I must have missed the mixer. But the market for 4M and higher D5 only began in 2005. Nine of the 15 $4M+ sales in D5 have been post-crash. Four this year so far. That market has shifted south, somewhat. So there you go ...
Posted by: Anon1 at September 20, 2012 8:35 AM
One comment on the location...Collingwood is up a crazy steep hill. With a car, you have great access to the Castro or Noe Valley. But unless you are a mountain goat you won't walk much. Not sure the buying demographic will necessarily care, but I think PART of the appeal of 111 Liberty and the great place on Church was that they were right in the middle of things.
Posted by: curmudgeon at September 20, 2012 9:22 AM
Ummm, yeah. I can correct this mystery over the 2005 sale.
it sold for $4,595,000 in 2005, not $3,595,000
I actually worked on the file, was a transaction coordinator at the time. Not sure how this info was missed. So you're not looking at 33% appreciation, more like 4% appreciation. How was this missed?
[Editor’s Note: Public records have the 2005 sale recorded at $3,595,000. We're all ears and will set the record straight if you can provide, or point to, any documentation to support a sale at $4,595,000 in 2005 (email firstname.lastname@example.org).]
Posted by: RE-Worker at September 20, 2012 9:52 AM
342 Collingwood was sold on the same day, to the same person, for $1M.
342 is the adjoining lot to 350.
I think this is why RE-Worker has seen the $4.595M sale.
PropertyShark has the details.
Posted by: lol at September 20, 2012 11:08 AM
And based on the pictures, 342 is the garden space to the side of 350.
This is one heck of a property. Large house, humongous lot. 5M seems in the right range.
Posted by: lol at September 20, 2012 11:15 AM
UPDATE: While the parcel with the house at 350 Collingwood sold for $3,595,000 in 2005, as a plugged-in reader correctly catches, the adjacent landscaped lot at 342 Collingwood sold for $1,000,000, a total purchase price of $4,595,000 for the property that's listed as "350 Collingwood" today. Our apologies for any confusion and since clarified above.
Posted by: SocketSite at September 20, 2012 12:15 PM
So this is actually two lots, one build and the other landscaped? Can the new buyer develop the other lot still? That vacant lot is probably worth more than the $1M it cost in 05.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at September 20, 2012 12:40 PM
Never understand why the fireplace is put smack dab in the middle of the viewpoint. There would be a full frontal view of the city otherwise. And also would love a roof terrace on that front portion of the house. The paint job does minimize the scope of the house. Usually the garage base is a dark color. Here the color rises too high into the living space, but that maybe dictated by the trim. Also, what are the two mini windows below the front guest suite? Floorplans don't show a basement.
Posted by: Marten at September 20, 2012 1:48 PM
@ Marten, the fireplace is not blocking the city view.
Posted by: Anon1 at September 20, 2012 2:06 PM
The city, being the entire city, at least in an easterly direction, not just downtown.
Posted by: Marten at September 20, 2012 3:41 PM
Yeah, but you aren't seeing over Liberty Hill to the east, let alone over the entire Mission, which would be that big view. In fact you might not be seeing over the neighbor across the street. Hey, I think it is ill considered when fireplaces break up views for no reason too. But this one doesn't appear to be doing that.
Posted by: Anon1 at September 20, 2012 4:28 PM
Big dog on a block of little dogs. No parking on home side of the street. Way overpriced. Nice views but not even close.
Posted by: NoeLocal at September 20, 2012 7:15 PM
Compared to what? It will sell at asking or above, therefore it's at the correct price.
Posted by: wc1 at September 20, 2012 8:15 PM
OVERPRICED compared to all the homes in the area-- immediate and otherwise. You must have a crystal ball. Who set the price? A RE agent. Not you.
Posted by: NoeLocal at September 25, 2012 2:35 PM
It sold. Not at or above asking, but it sold.
Posted by: bgelldawg at November 22, 2012 4:39 PM
so $20K less than 2005?
Posted by: curmudgeon at November 24, 2012 2:13 PM
If redfin is to be believed, this property just sold for $4.2 m this week, after selling for 4.57 m in Nov 12. I'm suspicious that perhaps the adjoining lot was split off during the sale, but the redfin listing speaks of a rare "double lot". Anyone know?
Posted by: curmudgeon at August 5, 2013 3:24 PM